Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Nuclear Levy

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the earliest year in which the nuclear levy could be abolished; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I announced on 12 February that the initial non-fossil fuel obligation would be set for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. The fossil fuel levy will be required for at least the same period, although I expect the rate to decline significantly over that time.

Mr. Barnes: How does the Secretary of State hope to reduce the subsidy, let alone abolish it? How will greater efficiency be introduced into the nuclear energy industry,

which is secretive, bureaucratic, technically complex and highly dangerous? Will it be done by reducing safety standards?

Mr. Wakeham: First, it will not be achieved by a reduction in safety standards. Secondly, whatever may have been the practice in the past, the arrangements that we are bringing into force will be much more open, allowing for greater public scrutiny. Nuclear electricity is vital to ensure security of supply. As nuclear power still costs more than fossil power, the levy is needed so that the extra costs can be identified and fairly shared out.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that critics of the nuclear levy should bear it in mind that in the past, perhaps for very good reasons, coal has been subsidised? If subsidies were beneficial to that industry, is not a subsidy for the nuclear industry appropriate now?

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. The nuclear industry is required, properly, to pay the costs of disposing of its own waste, so it is not quite on a level playing field with other energy producers. It is important to make a proper comparison.

Mr. Dobson: How does it benefit electricity consumers for the right hon. Gentleman to insist that nuclear power stations —the most expensive in the system —must run continually?

Mr. Wakeham: Anyone who knows about the electricity industry, as the hon. Gentleman does, will appreciate that nuclear power stations, being base load capacity, are more economic if run full time. The major part of the cost of a nuclear reactor is its capital cost rather than its running costs.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he included the nuclear levy in the price increases that he announced recently? With distribution and transmission costs varying across the country, will boards need to impose a range of electricity price increases in the future?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I can confirm that, as I announced recently in the House the average price increases for all customers will be below the rate of inflation and will


include customers' contributions to the nuclear levy. My hon. Friend is right that there will be a variation in the prices levied by area boards, but that is a matter for them. Prices will vary from area to area, as they have in the past. Some boards have greater costs because their customers are few and far between and a large cable network is expensive. Other boards have a traditionally low rate of return and have further to catch up.
As I said, the precise figure to be charged is a matter for each board, but domestic electricity price increases, which I believe particularly interest my hon. Friend, will range from 8 to 9 per cent. with perhaps two or three boards increasing their charges by a higher percentage. However, I expect that, overall, increases will range from 3 to 8 per cent., with the average being less than 6 per cent.

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the fossil fuel or nuclear levy in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

Mr. Wakeham: The rate of the levy will depend on the terms of the nuclear contracts. Those will ensure that the nuclear levy follows a declining profile. I therefore expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years.

Mr. Barron: In relation to contracts, is it true that the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric have been advised not to start trading as a plc until they have some guarantee from the Treasury about the costs of reprocessing and decommissioning?

Mr. Wakeham: That is not a correct statement of affairs. Any director of any company has to satisfy himself that the company conforms with all the requirements of the Companies Acts before it starts trading, and the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric are no exception. They will want to see that Nuclear Electric is set up on a proper basis, as I do. All will be revealed in due course.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in calculating those levies we must compare the cost of generation by nuclear power with the cost of coal or other fossil fuels? Nuclear power generation involves long-term costs, but we shall know the cost of coal generation only at the end of the three-year contracts with British Coal. When my right hon. Friend makes that comparison, will he take into account the cost of flue gas desulphurisation, during the next three years at least, and the possible cost of cheap coal from overseas, which is low in sulphur?

Mr. Wakeham: The question of which fuel the generators use to generate electricity and, in practice, which mix of fuels will be a matter for them at the end of the period. Obviously, there will be competition between British coal, gas and oil and imported coal. The Government are committed to the implementation of the European directive on desulphurisation, and they will ensure that the fossil fuel generators, when they are floated, will be able to meet their obligations under the directive.

Mersey Barrage

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a decision on whether the Mersey barrage will be constructed.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Mersey Barrage Company's application for the non-fossil fuel obligation is under consideration by my Department.

Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for his personal commitment to the project. Does he intend to include the barrage scheme in the non-fossil fuel obligation? When is a decision likely to be reached? Will he confirm that of all the candidates for barrage schemes, his Department's findings show that the best location would be the River Mersey?

Mr. Morrison: To answer the hon. Gentleman's first point, he and the whole House will be pleased to hear that, under the non-fossil fuel obligation, about 300 applications have been handed by the distribution companies to my Department. A considerable amount of work remains to be done to discover which fit the criteria. The hon. Gentleman knows, because he came to see me in the Department, that I should like progress to be made on the Mersey barrage scheme. As for the difficulties of the scheme——

Mr. Skinner: Mañana man.

Mr. Morrison: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is interested in the Mersey barrage. The difficulties are commercial and environmental, and they will have to be considered carefully.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that £1 million worth of clear, renewable electricity could be generated each week by the scheme? Would not it be a most valuable and important precursor to a Severn barrage?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot confirm the precise amount to my hon. Friend, but it is certainly considerable. I am sure that, if it went ahead, the Mersey barrage would be a precursor to the Severn barrage.

Oil Platform Fabrication

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the potential for expanding the size of the United Kingdom fabrication capacity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Consideration of the potential for expansion of capacity in the fabrication industry is a matter for the private sector, and will depend on the commercial judgment of individual yard owners.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that opaque answer. There has been some discussion, at least in Scotland —as the Minister will know—about the number of fabrication yards and whether there is any possibility of expanding them. I am thinking in particular of the former Kishorn site in Wester Ross which went into receivership; there has been talk about its future.
Will the Minister bear it in mind that the private sector is, rightly, still concerned about the European Community draft directive on procurement, and about the knock-on effect that it could have on the oil-related sector in Scotland? Can he give us any idea of the Department's thinking on either subject?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it was only two years ago that he and other hon. Members who represent yards in the north and north-east of


Scotland were coming to me and asking —understandably —where the work would come from. Now we are in a different position, with different challenges. It may be opaque to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the market place that decides.
As for the directive, as I have said several times it is important that we continue to play on a level field, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage energy conservation in the home.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My Energy Efficiency Office continues to promote energy efficiency in the home through a number of programmes.

Mr. Tredinnick: Many of my constituents, especially the residents of Hinckley, will welcome the new scheme for insulation in low-income homes. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to support the proposals when they come before the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill, and has he any proposals for advertising to encourage people to be more energy conservation-minded in the home?

Mr. Morrison: Clause 10 of the Social Security Bill, which is being piloted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is part of the grand design of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall give it every support that I can. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) knows, last week I issued a consultation paper; we are waiting to hear any ideas that he and no doubt many others may have.
We have a small advertising campaign —aimed principally at industry and commerce—during the next few weeks, with the aim of targeting the people to whom my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Dalyell: As vice-chairman of the Conservative party, does the Minister believe that his Energy Efficiency Office is any more efficient than the Prime Minister's Office, whose costs have risen by 20·6 per cent?——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is well wide of the question. If the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper, I am sure that he will receive an answer.

Mr. Gow: Would not the Government set a much better example to those who should be saving energy in their homes if they were better at saving electricity costs by economising on lighting and heating? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all over the country in public sector buildings lights are on at noon on bright days and that they are also far too hot? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I chair a committee, at which a Minister from each Department is represented, whose aim is to achieve precisely those objectives. If he visited my Department, my hon. Friend would see energy-efficient lamp bulbs that use only one fifth of the electricity normally used by lights. I am sure that he would like other Departments to be shown that example.

Mr. Skinner: As Chairman of the energy conservation committee which oversees all those Departments, will the Minister take a look at the figures relating to central heating in the Houses of Parliament? Every year that I have been a Member of Parliament, the organisations concerned have spent a small fortune every recess trying to get it right, and they have not succeeded yet. I should like to know how much the bills amount to: my guess is that the figure is well over £20 million.
When he has done that, will the Minister go to No. 10 Downing street and, in his capacity as chairman of that committee, find out why the Prime Minister has spent 20·6 per cent. extra on central heating? Is it because of Bernard Ingham and all the others who are stuck up in the attic?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most prominent Members of the House will no doubt realise better than I that the House of Commons (Services) Committee will look into that matter. It is not a matter for a Government Department. Perhaps an approach by the hon. Gentleman and myself to the Committee —although an unholy alliance —might work. I shall consider every aspect of the cost of energy as far as it is within the province of this Department of state.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that according to well-informed opinion, PowerGen, National Power and the other generating companies could spend their money better if they subsidised home insulation instead of building more power stations?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will realise that the electricity and gas industries are required, after privatisation, to provide energy efficiency advice. They were not required to give that advice when they were nationalised.

Electricity Boards

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the area electricity boards; and what matters he expects to discuss.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet area board chairmen regularly to discuss various matters.

Mr. McKay: When the Secretary of State next meets the area board chairmen will he ask them whether they agree with John Bailey of National Power that domestic consumers should get through 1990–91 without an increase in domestic electricity rates? Or is it the case, in a newly privatised industry, of "Excused boots" during the fight against inflation?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know the Mr. Bailey to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
I have already stated my views about prices. I believe that domestic and commercial consumers will get a good deal out of privatisation. It will compare well with the price rises that were imposed under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the electricity boards, will he impress on them that the greatest wish in the nation is for security of supply to keep the lights burning at home and the factories working? Will he also impress upon them that we must go


for all options, whether they be coal, oil, gas or nuclear? All those options must be open to us if we are to keep the lights burning and the factories working.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Under the terms of the privatised electricity industry, there will be a legal obligation on area boards to offer terms to any customer. Under their licence conditions, they must have the capacity to meet any likely requirement. There will be substantial penalties if they do not meet those requirements.

Mr. Hardy: I share the concern that people should be reasonably warm and that the wheels of industry should turn, but does the Secretary of State accept that the price of electricity should command more attention and priority than it seems to? In addition, when he meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he advise them that although the licence under which they will operate after privatisation may allow them to run funeral parlours and second-hand car showrooms, and other activities in the service sector which may be even less attractive, their overwhelming concern must be the maintenance of an electricity supply?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that the area chairmen require no lectures from me, or even from the hon. Gentleman, about their responsibilities. The area boards will be public limited companies of substantial local significance. They will be big employers in their areas and will have big responsibilities. In my opinion, they will be very well run and will be very good members of the community that they serve.

Mr. Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairmen of the boards, will he outline to them some of the plans for allowing employees in the industry to buy shares after privatisation, particularly in the north-west of England? When the water industry was privatised, over 90 per cent. of the employees took shares in it. My right hon. Friend can expect a willing and eager response from the people who live in my constituency. They want to involve themselves in this newly privatised industry.

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. We very much hope that a large number of the employees in the privatised companies will take advantage of the opportunity to have shares in their companies. The necessary arrangements will be announced in due course.

Mr. Morgan: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he ask them whether they agree with John Baker, the chief executive-designate of National Power, that, in economic terms, there is no need for an increase in domestic electricity prices from 1 April? For the third year running, the Government are imposing an increase in domestic electricity prices at least twice what was requested by the industry. Are the Government jacking up electricity prices as a form of taxation, to use the price of fuel to encourage conservation —one might call it an insulated roof tax —or do they simply wish to increase the rate of return, which is not high enough for the Government's friends in the City?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The price of electricity must be determined at a price which is accepted and enables the industry to earn a reasonable rate of return.

Mr. Barron: Answer the question.

Mr. Wakeham: I will answer the hon. Gentleman. The rate of return that a privatised industry will earn will be slightly less than the 5 per cent. return on assets that would have been required under Labour party policy had the industry remained in the state sector. The deduction that any reasonable person could make is that the price of privatised electricity will be lower than it would have been under a Labour Government.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of privatised power shows that investment is greater and prices are lower than they would have been had the industry stayed in the public sector?

Mr. Wakeham: The record is there for all to see. The electricity industry will be run more efficiently and I hope that investment will be better directed than it sometimes has been in the past.

National Grid

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Grid Company; and what matters he expects to discuss.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend and I meet and will continue to meet the chairman-designate of the National Grid Company from time to time to discuss a range of matters relevant to the company and the electricity industry as a whole.

Mr. McFall: Does not the incident at Hinkley B power station two weeks ago demonstrate that nuclear power stations are more vulnerable than conventional power stations because when storms affect the nearby grid lines, the entire station has to be tripped out? In the light of that, how can the Minister keep asserting that nuclear power stations guarantee security of supply?

Mr. Baldry: Nothing happened at Hinkley B which was in any way untoward, and it is highly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Nuclear electricity makes a significant contribution to diversity of power supplies in Britain and will continue to do so.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister look into a matter that causes me some anxiety —the transmission of electricity across the country by high transmission lines on pylons which create an electric charge? Current research in the United States shows that when they go past housing estates they could be a hazard to people who live beneath them. I should like to think that there is no hazard, but I should be grateful if the Department would look into the matter.

Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend will write to me on that I shall make sure that his anxieties are thoroughly investigated.

Mr. Doran: The Minister will be aware of the increasing concern at the number of gas burn generating schemes that have recently been announced. Will he raise the matter when he next meets the chairman, and in particular will he let us know whether the Government welcome the explosion in gas burn schemes? Is it part of a planned policy and has consideration been given to the effect that it is likely to have on other forms of electricity generation?

Mr. Baldry: It is and always has been the policy of this Government —and, I think, of the Labour party when it was in government —that there should be diversity of electricity generation based on coal, gas and nuclear sources. I find it a little difficult to reconcile the hon. Gentleman's question with my meetings with the chairman of National Grid.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of improvement in energy efficiency since 1979 (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European countries.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Energy consumption in the United Kingdom is virtually unchanged since 1979, although our gross domestic product has risen by 20 per cent. The average reduction in the United Kingdom's energy intensity between 1979 and 1987 was 2·5 per cent., comparing favourably with the European average of 1·6 per cent.

Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging figures, but does he accept that continuing improvements in energy efficiency are the best means, if not the only means, of reconciling the needs of economic growth and of the maintenance and protection of our environment? Will he assure the House that, if possible, our relative improvement compared with other countries will be sustained in future years?

Mr. Morrison: The simple answer is yes and yes. We believe that energy efficiency remains important, and we shall do all that we can to strive to ensure that we out-perform other countries.

Ms. Armstrong: In the light of that reply, will the Minister reconsider the regulations, under which assistance for district heating schemes can be obtained only by users of more than 25,000 therms of gas per year? Derwentside district council has made representations to the Minister on that because, having managed through energy conservation to reduce its consumption to less than 22,000 therms a year, it is losing grant aid and support for its schemes. Is that not a scandal, and does it not go against everything that the Government preach?

Mr. Morrison: No, it is not a scandal. I am prepared to look at any scheme according to the rules laid down, but it certainly is not a scandal and it does not go against the need to continue our efforts to achieve energy efficiency, as demonstrated by the 300 applications under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest spurs to energy efficiency is an increase in the cost of energy? Does he agree that it is not entirely realistic to compare our energy efficiency record with that of our continental neighbours without also comparing the average cost of electricity? Does he further agree that the greatest barrier to energy efficiency is the low cost of electricity in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that international comparisons must take many factors into account, but neither he nor I would be popular with hon. Members if we advocated a policy of high energy costs.

Pipelines

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of oil and gas pipelines constructed in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each of the last five years.

Mr. Peter Morrison: In the years 1985 to 1989, the numbers of oil pipelines authorised for construction on the United Kingdom continental shelf were 28, 16, 10, 37 and 30. The corresponding figures for gas pipelines were 29, 18, 15, 24 and 30.

Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the Minister shares our concern for the future of British Steel. What action is he taking to promote its involvement in the construction of those pipelines and to increase the British contribution to them?

Mr. Morrison: I want British Steel to be as successful as the hon. Gentleman does. A significant number of pipelines have been approved in the past five years. Subject to being able to predict the future, we expect as many approvals in the next five years. That offers a significant market opportunity for British Steel which I hope that it will take.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what reports from PowerGen he has received about energy-saving proposals.

Mr. Baldry: I have received no specific reports from PowerGen about energy-saving proposals, but I am aware of its interest in the subject.

Mr. Jack: I am disappointed. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not seen recent press reports on PowerGen's suggested initiative to save energy by insulating existing properties and factories rather than building new power stations. Perhaps he will evaluate that proposition, make public his findings and also publicise the benefits of insulating existing housing rather than concentrating simply on new build.

Mr. Baldry: If PowerGen is considering energy-saving proposals, that is entirely a matter for the company to decide. I applaud the company's business acumen in investigating the potential of energy efficiency. Everyone must have an interest in using energy as efficiently as possible.

Landfill Gas Schemes

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.

Sir George Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department took the lead in exploring the potential of landfill gas and has spent some £2 million on research, development and demonstration projects to encourage its exploitation as a fuel.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pouring rubbish into large excavations in the fields owned


by the London Brick Company and in other parts of the country will result in a great advantage to the environment? Is he aware that, although this source will contribute greatly to electricity production, a hazard exists and if houses are built on the sites, strict regulations, which I believe already exist, must be observed to ensure that they are protected?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend about the significant advantages to be gained from landfill gas. I am delighted that about 50 of the 300 non-fossil fuel obligation applications relate to landfill gas. I agree that the correct regulations must be taken into account both when the gas is used and afterwards.

Sir George Young: Although, on the face of it, this seems an unlikely energy source, is it used overseas for useful purposes?

Mr. Morrison: In short, yes. I will provide my hon. Friend with the detail if he wishes.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that the putrefaction processes involved in the generation of gas in landfill sites lead to considerable contamination of groundwater in many sites? In conjunction with the projects that his Department runs, will he ask the Department of the Environment to consider the impact of landfill sites on the general environment?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the environmental aspects of landfill gas. That is why it is important to carry out a great deal of research and development. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would welcome the initiatives that have been taken, not least because such projects involve recycling and contribute greatly to tackling the greenhouse effect.

Union of Democratic Mineworkers

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had with the officers of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Wakeham: I have met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and we discussed a number of issues affecting the coal industry.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at that meeting, the leaders of the UDM and the right hon. Gentleman discussed the possibility that if the Tories were re-elected they would introduce privatisation arrangements for British Coal and money would be laundered to the UDM not only to set up companies in advance to buy into British Coal but to use taxpayers' money in the form of actual cash or of departmental expertise? Given the press comments to that effect, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House that no taxpayers' money has been handed over in any form to the UDM and will not be handed over in the event of privatisation?

Mr. Wakeham: I know of no taxpayers' money that has been handed over to the UDM. The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that he knows what went on at my meeting with the president of the UDM. It was a very interesting meeting and I told him about the Government's position on coal privatisation. For the hon. Gentleman's

benefit, I will repeat what I said. I said that the Government were committed to privatising the coal industry in the next Parliament but had not determined the best way for that to be done. I said that I would welcome the president's suggestions of what he thought would be the best way for it to be done and I await his suggestions in due course.

Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, did he discuss the fact that as British Coal is the largest power supply user in the country —the environmentally friendly mini-power station at Bilsthorpe —will be subject to the nuclear levy?

Mr. Wakeham: Negotiations about that power station are still in progress. The levy is paid by consumers of electricity and not by power stations and is based on an order that has been presented to the House.

Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman met officials of the UDM, was he candid and frank with them? Did he tell them that if the Government continue to pursue their policies there will be a correspondingly large contraction of coal mining in the Nottinghamshire area as he has already intimated that the Government propose to give the go-ahead to the import of low-sulphur coal and as desulphurisation has a lower priority on his Department's agenda?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that matter was raised when I spoke to the president of the UDM. Had it been raised, I should have confirmed that the Government are fully committed to the European directive, so there has been no change in that policy. I should also have mentioned that, in accordance with the policies of our predecessors, the Government do not seek to restrict the importation of coal.
I said to the president that the future place of British Coal in our economy depends on its ability to be the supplier of choice for the generating industry. I believe that an efficient British Coal will still maintain a substantial share of the generating industry's fuel requirements, and I hope that the industry will respond to the challenge before it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Local Government Finance

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the community charge on the revenues from his properties in Lancashire.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The community charge will have no effect upon revenue from Duchy property in Lancashire.

Mr. Jack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Duchy residents are suffering the worst case of pillage since the Viking era in the unnecessarily high community charge that they will have to bear as a result of overspending by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council? Does my right hon. Friend agree that their position could be helped if the county council adopted the Conservative


group's suggestion of a charge £60 less than that proposed by Labour? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Conservative group on its initiative?

Mr. Baker: I was in Lancashire on Friday and I met many people who were angry with Lancashire county council, whose expenditure has risen by 17½ per cent. —a massive £123 million —with the result that the community charge figure will be very high. If the rating system had continued, the rates in Lancashire would have risen by 32 per cent. this year. I warmly congratulate the Conservative group on Lancashire county council on advancing proposals setting out in detail how they would reduce the community charge by £60 per person in a full year.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not the fixing of budgets for the education of our children, the care of elderly people, the provision of social services and the meeting of housing needs far too important a matter to be affected by arm-twisting, bullying and intimidation from the chairman of the Conservative party? Whatever happened to the concept of the poll tax bringing more accountability to local government? That idea seem to have gone out of the window now that Ministers and the chairman of the Tory party have been ringing up leaders of authorities to threaten them. Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seen the denunciation by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy of the fictitious figures used by the Prime Minister in the House last week to manipulate public opinion? As he is talking about the effect of high poll tax figures, why does he not deal with the situation in his own county of Surrey?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Lancashire.

Dr. Cunningham: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman compare Lancashire with Surrey? Working is 56 per cent. above the Government figure, Fareham 49 per cent., Eastleigh in Hampshire 48 per cent. and Dover in Kent 48 per cent. What is he telling his Tory constituents in Mole Valley?

Mr. Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the difference between a Conservative-controlled authority and a Labour-controlled authority and I have not been ringing up the obvious Conservative councils. A Conservative authority looks for value for money and tries to find ways to reduce the community charge whereas a Labour authority looks for ways to increase expenditure. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to raise these questions. He is the author —the sole author, as I understand it —of the roof tax and local income tax. My constituents in Mole Valley want to know what they would pay under the Cunningham roof tax and local income tax. The hon. Gentleman announced his proposals with a great flourish of trumpets last year, but the shadow Cabinet panicked when it saw them and he was told to say nothing more about them. The Labour party will have to come clean by 3 May about its alternative to the community charge. It would be fundamentally dishonest for the Labour party to campaign without a specific alternative as electors would not know how they would be affected. If by 3 May the electors do not know how they will be affected, the Labour party will have been cynical, dishonest and hypocritical.

York

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy's properties in York.

Mr. Baker: I plan to visit York on 1 May, although not in my capacity as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Gregory: In anticipation of my right hon. Friend's next visit to York, will he note the buoyant state of the economy there and that it is enjoying an unprecedented decline in unemployment in line with the national trend? Will he confirm that that is in stark contrast with the years when York, like the rest of the nation, was unfortunately under a Socialist administration?

Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the past year unemployment in Yorkshire has fallen by a fifth and in the past three years it has fallen by half. That will be welcomed by both sides of the House. I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI who in November 1989 said:
Business in the region is in much better shape to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond than anyone would have dared forecast at the beginning of this decade.
That is a tribute to the buoyancy of the economy in Yorkshire and to the policies that we have followed in the past 11 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Employees (Insurance Contributions)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on his recent correspondence with the hon. Member for Bolsover on insurance contributions paid by employees.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): This is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission strictly. I can confirm what I told the hon. Gentleman in correspondence. The Comptroller and Auditor General has significant doubts about the effectiveness of controls exercised by the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue acting on its behalf to ensure that employers have properly calculated and paid all contributions due to the national insurance fund. As a result, he has qualified his certificate for the 1988–89 national insurance fund account which is due to be published early in March. He has also told me that he intends to carry out a major study of this area, which would examine whether the Department's mechanisms for ensuring that contributions have been received from the maximum number of eligible persons operate in an economic and effective way.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Comptroller and Auditor General that we are pleased that the investigation is going ahead? Will he also tell him to be aware that some companies say that they employ only a small number of people when in fact they have a larger number on the books?
Will the hon. Gentleman also ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the multinational companies which pay extravagant salaries abroad but according to their returns to the Inland Revenue supposedly pay only


Mickey Mouse wages here? Will he tell his right hon. Friends that introducing legislation and changing the rules so often provides many loopholes? Is it not time that there were more inspectors dealing with that issue rather than hounding one-parent families?

Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General is examining the system of controls at the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. There is no evidence from his investigations to show that there is widespread abuse. If any such evidence comes to light, the Comptroller and Auditor General will report it to the House and I have no doubt that it will be examined by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that 99·9 per cent. of British companies collect national insurance contributions and pay them to the Treasury in the proper way? Does he further agree that unscrupulous companies should be rooted out, booted out and taken to court?

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know what the proportion is, but I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern: As I informed the House in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 January, the Commission last met on 12 December 1989. Among the subjects discussed at that meeting were the estimates for the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1990–91, and the corporate plan for the National Audit Office to 1994–95.

Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one reason why the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to discover and investigate scandals such as the national insurance scandal is that he has, and must maintain, adequate levels of staff? Will he make every effort to ensure that the wage levels paid in the National Audit Office are at least comparable with, if not better than, those paid in the private sector so that the multi-million and possibly billion-pound scandals that have come to light will continue to be revealed to the House?

Sir Peter Hordern: Recruitment to the National Audit Office is proceeding well and the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite satisfied with that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the Commission last met it had before it the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? That report highlights the fact that the Refreshment Department has almost £2 million in reserve, yet it pays some of the lowest wages in the country to those employed in the Dining Rooms of the House. Is that not a matter——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that that is a matter for the Public Accounts Commission.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a Commission report. Why cannot I ask my question without interruption?

Mr. Speaker: These questions relate to the Public Accounts Commission, not the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a Commission report.

Sir Peter Hordern: I read the National Audit Office annual report with great care, but I can remember nothing about the kitchen committee's report in it. No doubt it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will wish to raise with his right hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

EC Directives

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council over the last 12 months how many European Economic Commission directives emanating form the Commission were considered by the House before and after 10 o'clock; and how many were not considered by the House at all.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): All the legislative proposals issued by the European Commission are considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which decides whether to recommend them for debate. Including non-legislative documents, 751 EEC documents were deposited in Parliament in 1989. A total of 96 documents were debated—32 before 10 pm, 40 after 10 pm, and 24 in Standing Committee.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a major democratic problem when floods of legislation affecting all our constituencies pour out of Brussels but in many cases are not fully discussed by the House of Commons? Should not further action be taken to ensure that legislation affecting our constituents is properly discussed in the House before decisions are made in Brussels? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the worst solution of all would be to refer that flood of legislation to tame Committees?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend must understand that delegated legislation, national or international, has long been a feature of parliamentary government, particularly unitary parliamentary government such as our own.
On Community legislation, the number of documents coming forward for approval or consideration by the House has not varied significantly in the past 10 years. The proportion debated depends upon the proportion recommended for further consideration by the Scrutiny Committee. That proportion has varied between 10 and 15 per cent., and the figure last year was in no way exceptional. I believe that all those recommended for consideration were debated.
The Procedure Committee report that we are studying makes it clear that debates on such matters are normally held in time. We shall, of course, give further consideration to its recommendations.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that the significance of many of the documents, particularly many of the 90 that we discussed last year, is becoming much greater? Does he therefore agree in principle with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that it


would he better for the Select Committee on European Legislation to be able to put those important documents in a wider context? Does he agree with analogy that the EC Scrutiny Committee already has binoculars at its eyes but is asking the House to give it radar?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course the Government attach importance to continuing proper scrutiny of legislation of this kind. That is why we are studying closely the recommendations of the Procedure Committee report, which found that the scrutiny machinery of this Parliament was at least as effective as that of any other member state. It is right that we should give detailed consideration to the Committee's report with a view to early implementation of any changes that the House agrees are necessary.

Mr. Rowe: As we get closer to the EC, which is entirely desirable in most respects, would not it ensure that a higher political priority were given to such important scrutiny if the power to initiate legislation came from Ministers rather than from the European Commission? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would he a much better way to run the EC?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the process whereby legislation takes shape depends on the relationship between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The Commission often takes on board proposals from various member states or Ministers. Those proposals, wherever they originate, are carefully considered by the Council before being subjected to consideration by the European Parliament as well as by national Parliaments.

Eastern European Parliamentarians

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to meet Members of Parliaments of Warsaw pact countries to discuss parliamentary and democratic procedures.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a huge increase in contacts with parliamentarians and others in eastern Europe following the dramatic and most welcome developments there in the past few months. Naturally I have played a full part in that and I look forward to maintaining such contacts.

Mr. Winnick: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to those parliamentarians that while their countries are, we hope, beginning to establish the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, in Britain the Tory Government have taken away the right of many people working in local government to stand for election in another local authority, to stand for election to Parliament or to take part in any political activity? How can he justify his action of six years ago, when he took away the right of people to belong to a trade union if they happened to be working at GCHQ? Is it not odd that while east European countries are heading towards democracy, our democratic process is being undermined?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The oddity is entirely in the hon. Gentleman's perception. The decisions taken by the Government in relation to trade union membership at GCHQ have been tested and upheld in many places. The

decisions taken about the relationship between local government membership and party-political representation were strongly debated in this House and further debated in the other place. The conclusion that emerged was the result of proper consideration in both Houses of a democratic Parliament.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that people emerging from a Socialist paradise in the East are unlikely to want lessons on parliamentary democracy from Socialists in the West?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have noticed that they tend to look toward the Government for instruction in these matters.

Mr. Alton: Following the announcement last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs that funding would be available to political parties in this House which they would be able to make available to parties in eastern Europe, can the Leader of the House say how much money will be available? Bearing in mind that elections are already under way in eastern Europe, will he give us the timetable? Are the organisations that the Government have in mind similar to foundations such as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the FriedrichNaumann-Stiftung in West Germany?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will realise that such help is being given in a number of different ways, ranging from the Inter-Parliamentary Union to the Great Britain/East Europe centre; a know-how fund for Poland and other countries is also available. I will put the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a good idea for people from eastern Europe to explain both to Socialists in this House and to the British public why they are getting rid of nationalisation, high taxation and a bureaucratic state and looking towards the British Government's privatisation policies as the way forward for a free society?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that Conservative Members are certainly of one mind with my hon. Friend. The process of privatisation has been undertaken not just in eastern Europe but in countries around the world, following the example set by the Government of this country.

Dr. Cunningham: Welcome though the contacts with developing democracies in eastern Europe will be, will the Leader of the House say whether his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have advised the new democratic Governments to introduce more than 50 Acts of Parliament taking away powers from the local level and giving them to Ministers? Have they been advised to abolish the existing councils for their capital cities? How many requests has the Leader of the House had from eastern European Governments about the advantages of introducing a poll tax in their countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One cannot but admire the one-track nature of the hon. Gentleman's mind. Certainly, one of the proposals that we commend to democratic countries in eastern Europe is for a sensible pattern of local government taxation such as exists in this country.

Car Park (Car Washing)

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the washing of hon. and right hon. Members' cars in the Members' car park.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Following representations by the staff side of the House of Commons Whitley committee, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has confirmed that attendants in the underground car park may, by private arrangement, wash Members' cars out of duty hours.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the valuable freedom of hon. Members to have their cars washed at their own expense in the Members' car park has recently been substantially curtailed? Knowing how extremely valuable and highly regarded that facility is, will he look into the matter again to see whether it is possible to make it easier rather than more difficult for Membersto have their cars washed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the matter was considered, no doubt with the detailed attention that it deserves, by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee on 19 February. Its conclusion was arrived at on the basis that the service to which my hon. Friend refers is a voluntary service undertaken by private arrangement out of duty hours. It has been agreed by the authorities on that basis and will continue as such.

Catering

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward propals to amalgamate the catering departments of the Houses of Lords and Commons; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no such plans.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there could be savings in amalgamating the Refreshment Departments of the House of Lords and the House of Commons and that it would he beneficial as well as convivial for Members of both Houses to meet over meals? Does he agree that Members of this House would enjoy going to sit on the long benches in the House of Lords Dining Room, as much as the Lords would enjoy coming to the House of Commons Cafeteria?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not so familiar as my hon. Friend obviously is with the wide range of facilities available in the other place.

Mr. Dickens: My right hon. and learned Friend will be.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a pleasure to which many hon. Members from both sides of the House can look forward in the distant future. There are no doubt sensible reasons for considering a higher degree of co-operation between the catering Departments at both ends of the Palace of Westminster. However, historical and constitutional separations make that process of co-operation more than usually difficult.

Points of Order

Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any notification from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers that they want to make a statement on the outcome of the election in Nicaragua, which has seen the destruction of another Socialist icon and the rejection, once and for all, of the concept that the Sandinistas are a popular regime rather than one that was imposed on the people?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed the arrival at 3.30 pm of the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip on the Front Bench. Could this have been a matter of their concern to support question 78, which is on providing accommodation for the archives of Government Chief Whips? Would they like recorded —if they are not too profane—their expletives when they have to persuade their colleagues to accept the community charge——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was an interesting question, but we did not reach it.

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the exchanges during questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I seek your guidance on the length of time for questions. I tried to temper my comments on the community charge in Lancashire so as to give adequate time for a response. I could have gone on at some length about reductions in the charge that could have resulted if Lancashire had not topped up its balances—£160 off the community charge——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had a jolly good run on that; I do not think that he can have another bite at it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a report about the incident on Friday when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) moved the Second Reading of his Bill on access to medical records. At 2.28 pm the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) rose to say that he supported the Bill, and proceeded to talk it out. We asked for a report from the Deputy Speaker to be passed on to you, because we have reason to believe that the hon. Member for Esher has been linked with certain medical firms——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I read about that in Hansard. I was not asked for a report. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman is making that allegation, he must make it, not to me, but to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), Mr. Speaker.
It is important that Ministers be aware of the concern among Conservative Members that there should be a statement on Nicaragua, especially as we want to know what the view of the Opposition will be —particularly that

of the hon. Member for Newham, North East (Mr. Banks), who has just lost the use of the aeroplane that he has enjoyed in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker: Come on.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker.
Was Mr. Deputy Speaker aware at the time of the debate on Friday that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) was a director of a company called Angel Care UK Limited——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make allegations of that sort, he knows exactly what to do: he must make them, not here, but to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which is directly responsible for such matters.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that Back-Bench Members look on Question Time, and particularly on supplementary questions, as an opportunity to obtain answers to their questions. You will have noticed that during Question Time today Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen —especially the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked two questions —took up an inordinate amount of time asking questions, thereby preventing Back-Bench Members from getting in. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is it not about time these people were advised that Back-Bench Members want to participate?

Mr. Speaker: Quite right. I am strongly in favour of short supplementary questions, which tend to lead to short supplementary answers. I agree that questions asked today by hon. Members on both sides of the House were rather long.

Dr. John Cunningham: rose——

Hon. Members: Oh!

Dr. Cunningham: Given that Conservative Members raised the issue in the first place, it ill becomes them to groan when I decide to respond. In the interests of well-informed debate on all sides, I wanted to ensure that the question of the higher levels of poll tax in Tory shires and Tory councils would be raised.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be developing into an extension of Question Time on the part of those Members who, sadly, could not be called earlier today. I shall take only points of order that I can deal with because we have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Eric S. Hefter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your advice because I am somewhat confused about question No. 64. I should like to know whether it was right to phrase it in that way or whether the Table Office should have phrased it differently. It talks about,
revenues from his properties in Lancashire.
Surely the point is that the Duke of Lancaster is Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, these are Crown properties, and not the properties of any Minister or of any body other than the Crown. On that basis I should like to know precisely how a question in relation to the Duchy of


Lancaster should be phrased. The Duchy of Lancaster is an ethereal body that does not exist. The real body is the Crown and Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I think that this is what one might call shorthand for the properties for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responsibility. Perhaps the question should have appeared in that form on the Order Paper.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On occasion you ask hon. Members to confine themselves to a narrow question and to concern themselves solely with Lancashire. If I had been given the freedom that was given to the Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition, I would have been able to tell the House about Cleveland and the high community charge there——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should prefer the hon. Member not to do that now.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of all hon. Members, will you make clear precisely the procedure to be followed about the declaration of interests? Is it satisfactory for hon. Members simply to record them in the Register of Members' Interests and not to make any further reference to any interests when they rise to speak on a matter in which they clearly have an interest or in which it could be believed that they had an interest? Would it not be better if, when hon. Members with an interest rise to speak, they do not just leave the matter at something written in the book but declare the interest orally to the House? That would have got us round the difficulty that we encountered on Friday with the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Very well, I shall hear it and deal with the matter all at once.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham,

North-West (Mr. Banks) was about my good self. I make it clear that I was not notified that this matter would be raised today, and that is unfortunate. As I said on Friday, I had no relevant interest to disclose in relation to the speech that I made. Whether Opposition Members approve or disapprove of that speech, I hope that they will take that as the final word.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will leave the matter at that.

Mr. Dickens: I must declare an interest.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may do so in a minute. This is a serious matter. I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order No. 128. The House knows that it is not necessary to declare an interest at Question Time, but that in a debate, if a Member has a direct interest, he would always declare it.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it yet.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to declare an interest which I should declare every day of the week: I hate Socialism.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is a well-established rule of this House that any Member making a speech on a topic in which he has an interest should declare that interest. I am sure it will be agreed that this matter is particularly sensitive when, in the last two minutes of private Members' time on a Friday, the purpose of an intervention may be to block progress——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member, who was here, heard the hon. Gentleman say that he had no such interest—[Interruption.]
Order. We in this Chamber are honourable Members.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr Speaker: The only amendment selected is amendment No. 3.

Clause 1

LICENSED PREMISES: APPLICATION OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954, PART II

Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 31, at end insert:
3A. Section 38 (Restriction on agreements excluding provisions of Part II) of the 1954 Act shall be read and have effect as if there were added the following subsection—
'(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section shall not apply where the tenancy to be granted is to be of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, except where the holding of the licence is merely incidental to another purpose.'.
The purpose of this amendment is to outlaw the practice of contracting-out in the relationship between brewers and their pub tenants. The Bill relates to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which concerns the relationship between a landlord and a tenant in the case of a shop or other commercial premises. The 1954 Act, which was modified by the Law of Property Act 1969, includes a provision that allows landlords and their tenants to agree mutually to contract-out. The terms of the 1954 Act are defensible in the context of the circumstances that existed then. The country was trying to rebuild its economy at a time when many urban areas were shattered in the aftermath of the second world war and at a time when many suburban areas had been broken up and were trying to revitalise themselves, against quite difficult odds. At that time the House felt that it would be constructive to have in the 1954 Act a provision giving some more leeway than might otherwise have existed in relation to contracts between landlords and their tenants. In a sense, it was a question of allowing tenants to try to establish businesses in those difficult circumstances without being hamstrung by regulations and rules that probably were not required.
Of course, those tenants had many oportunities to locate in other areas nearby. At that time the House felt that where a landlord and his tenant were of the opinion that they could benefit mutually by coming to their own contractual arrangements, rather than by being tied by the strict terms of the Act, it was permissible for them, provided that they applied to the court, to be contracted-out of the specific terms of the Act.
The big difference between the position then and the present situation is that there is not now the same shortage of business accommodation. In many of the areas, especially urban areas, in which pubs are located there is sometimes a glut of accommodation. That rather tilts the balance of power in favour of the landlord and leaves the tenant exposed to the vagaries of the marketplace. In

addition, in the case of the brewery, the landlord often is not only the body owning the public house, which is at the retail end, but the organisation that dictates the nature of the product retailed in those premises dictates the conditions under which the product is retailed, and dictates the general environment in which it is retailed. I refer to such things as amusement machines, pin-ball games, and so on, all of which are often controlled by the landlord. So, in the beer industry, the relationship between landlord and tenant is quite different from that which generally pertains between landlord and tenant in the case of an ordinary commercial business.
I hope that the House acknowledges that distinction, because it was certainly felt in Committee that it exists. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will acknowledge also that it is not a simple relationship between a brewery landlord and a tenant but one that requires special consideration not always consistent with that given to the usual relationship between a landlord and tenant.
The nature of the relationship is essentially why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission identified that a complex monopoly exists. It is not a monopoly simply between one brewery and a number of retailers, but a complex monopoly among brewers and retailers. The question is whether the Bill provides the necessary and proper balance in the relationship between the brewery and a pub tenant. That is the guts of the Bill. Is the balance right?
I am sure that the House accepts that the relationship cannot be one way. If it is tilted too far in favour of the landlord, inevitably it will serve as a disincentive for landlords to establish a relationship with potential tenants. If it is tilted too far in favour of the tenant, that will discourage landlords. That argument is accepted by the National Licensed Victuallers Association, and I share its view that it is crucial to strike the right balance.
If the House does not accept the amendment, the important goal of achieving the right balance will not be met. Brewers are a powerful body of people and a powerful lobby. They will inevitably place undue pressure on tenants to exclude themselves from the terms of the Bill. If it is possible for brewers to reach a bilateral arrangement not covered by statute, and if they feel it is in their interests to seek such an agreement, it is only human nature that they will do so. If the amendment is not accepted, the balance of power will be tilted too far in the brewers' favour, and they will then be able to exercise too much power over prospective tenants.
If the Bill was not sympathetic to brewers, the Brewers Society, which is a powerful lobby, would have lobbied right hon. and hon. Members every day between the Committee stage and Report to ensure that the brewers' case was heard. I have heard of no lobbying of any significance in the weeks between the Committee stage and now. Compare that silence with the £6 million campaign that the Brewers Society conducted against the MMC's report and recommendations of 1988 and 1989. Although the Bill appears on the face of it to sympathise with the tenant and to be balanced, in fact it is tilted very much in favour of the brewery. The amendment is crucial if we are to give the legislation teeth.
There is no doubt in my mind that brewers will put the heat on potential tenants.

Mr. Don Dixon: Is it not a fact that the brewers have already exerted pressure on hon. Members?


A programme was recently shown on television, either on Channel 2 or 4, in which the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was quoted as saying that pressure had been put on him and his colleagues by the brewers since the Monopoly and Mergers Commission report had been published. If they can put that sort of pressure on independent Members of Parliament, can my hon. Friend imagine the amount of pressure that they can put on tenants who rent houses from the brewers?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that point. I might have been more grateful if he had not raised it, because he has stolen it from my text. However, this is a real worry, and I recall the submission made by the hon. Member for Beverley, who said that he felt that many Conservative Members had had to face great pressure from the Brewers Society which wanted them to defend its position, to defend the brewers and to examine the legislation with that borne carefully in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has made an important point. If hon. Members find it difficult to face up to the power of the brewers' lobby —and there was ample evidence of that being the case from the reaction of many hon. Members to the original proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission —what chance does the tenant of a pub have against the might of the brewers?
Later in my contribution I hope to give examples of the changes that are taking place in the industry which may cause undue pressure to be put on tenants. Some of the changes in the industry are taking place for normal economic reasons. As the patterns of urban and rural development change, it is necessary to have new outlets to retail beer. There are always changes in the industry, and there is always a need to change the location of public houses. Some pubs are more viable than others which fall out of favour.
Some weeks ago I was in an old dockland area in Salford where there no doubt used to be many old broken-down, sawdust-floored pubs which have now gone. The pubs there now are very posh and provide an upmarket service. I am sure that the relationship between tenant and brewer will be different in that area now. The brewer will have a different attitude to the location patterns of pubs and whether directly to manage pubs or to have tenanted houses or free houses. The type of tenant who might be able to face the new challenge in that part of Salford might be quite different from the tenant who originally took the house. So changes are taking place, and I recognise that.
However, other changes are taking place in the industry which are not due to everyday economic circumstances, but because of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the fact that it pointed out that competition was crucial to the industry and that because of the complex monopoly position that competition was not present—the brewers were making excessive profits and the consumers were paying excessive prices. All sorts of examples have been quoted to show that.
The Government then introduced regulations that in some cases changed the relationship between the brewer and the tenant of the pub. Some of the regulations were supported by the Opposition when they were debated in the House in December, but we felt that we could not give

our support to others. The Opposition put forward a number of counter proposals which the Minister, in his wisdom, was not able to accept. In the light of what has happened since December, perhaps the Minister will want to reconsider what has happened in the industry, particularly in relation to one case which I shall cite which illustrates one of the major changes taking place.
If I were of a mind, and if the House was sufficiently tolerant to allow me to do so, I could speak for a considerable time on the number of changes, but I hope that it will be sufficient for me to highlight four significant changes in the relationship between the landlord and the tenant during the past few months. All these changes, I believe, are a direct result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report and the orders passed in the House in December. They are all relevant to different parts of the market place, and I believe that they all demonstrate the weakness of the tenant's position.
4 pm
Courage and Grand Metropolitan are both large concerns, and both traditionally own both brewery and pub interests; some of the pubs have been directly managed, others tenanted. Courage has 5,002 pubs in this country, 3,673 of which are tenanted. The current bilateral relationship between Courage and its tenants has been established over a period, sometimes through negotiation with trade unions or the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
Those pubs are about to be transferred in a swap arrangement to Grand Metropolitan, which has different contractual arrangements with its tenants. Although there will obviously be some overlap, Grand Metropolitan's general approach to marketing may prove entirely different from the approach adopted by Courage in recent months. The tenants now face the difficult decision whether to accept new contracts. Initially Grand Metropolitan will be bound by the contracts that it has inherited, but as their tenancies come up for renewal tenants will find themselves faced with new terms and conditions that may be entirely different from those of Courage, and will thus be placed in a vulnerable position: Grand Metropolitan may have its eye on another market place. According to evidence accepted on both sides of the House, most tenancies are for three years or less, so the tenants will have to face their new circumstances fairly soon.
Another example is Scottish and Newcastle, which occupies a different sector of the market. The company was originally one of the big six, but, under the new arrangements following the adoption of the orders in December, any company with fewer than 2,000 pubs became bound by less severe regulations than those with more than 2,000; indeed, in most cases they were bound by no regulations at all. Scottish and Newcastle has 2,287 pubs. Rather than face up to its new responsibilities, the brewery intends to dispose of 250, which means that tenants will either be bound by a new contract with the new owners, or will end up out of work because of the closure of their tenancies.
The changes will affect not only the major sector of the market —or even the regional sector of which Scottish and Newcastle probably considers itself a part —but the small sector. Fuller, Smith and Turner, a London brewery, has 120 pubs of which 92 are tenanted. It has already told its


tenants that, because of the change in the regulations, it intends to draw up new contracts, not for some of them—as Scottish and Newcastle has done—but for all of them.
Mansfield brewery, in a more rural market, has 306 pubs, of which 196 are tenanted. It has said that it will introduce new contracts as the old ones expire, involving different terms and conditions. That, too, is a result of the changes in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
Dramatic changes are taking place. An editorial in Brewing Review suggested that they are more dramatic than any changes that have taken place in the industry for many years. This is at a time when the regulations and the law governing the relationship between landlord and tenant are changing. It is therefore crucial to get the balance right and ensure that there is equity and power sharing between the landlord and the tenant.
Amendment No. 3 is the key amendment. It will determine whether the Government have introduced fair and balanced legislation that will improve competition and give everyone a bit of the action. If the amendment falls, brewers will have all the power and will begin to put undue pressure on their tenants, and the Bill will be innocuous and spineless. Competition in the industry will suffer as a result of an already complex monopoly becoming an even more complex monopoly.

Mr. Dixon: Is not one of the problems that, by July 1992, 10 per cent. of the tenants will fall foul of the measure? We tried to resolve the problem in Committee, but the Government resisted our amendment, which we withdrew after the Minister's reply. It is important to point out that July 1992 is the operative date when brewers will be able to put pressure on tenants.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It suggests that the Government have not been selective in refusing to give way. They have refused to give way on numerous proposals that have been made, in the House and in Committee, both by Opposition Members and by those who support the Government.
If the House believes that the measure should lead to fairness and a balance of power, the different relationship between a pub landlord and a pub tenant and between a shop landlord and a shop tenant should be recognised in the legislation. Great changes are taking place in the industry. We need to achieve the right relationship so as to ensure that the tenant has appropriate power. If the Government do not accept the amendment, the legislation will be completely worthless. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will accept the argument that has been advanced not only by the Opposition but by Conservative Members.

Mr. Stan Crowther: First, I have to declare an interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
This matter was debated in Committee, but it is right to air it again on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has already pointed out that it is crucial to the effective operation of the Bill.
All hon. Members believe that the Government are moving in the right direction by extending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to licensed premises. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is over whether their laudable intentions will be frustrated if the

contracting-out provisions are allowed to apply to licensed premises. Many Opposition Members believe that they will. As my hon. Friend said, the measure provides for contracting-out if the landlord and tenant agree and if they can obtain the consent of the court.
In nine out of 10 cases there is no incentive for the landlord or the tenant to wish to contract out. The owner of a butcher's shop, a draper's shop or an office block is quite content to receive his rent, subject to the proper reviews, and, as long as the premises are properly maintained, he has no further interest in the business. He is not manufacturing the goods that are being sold in the shop. That is the essential difference between those premises and licensed premises as, clearly, a brewery company owning a tied house has a direct interest in the business which the tenant is running in those premises. In those circumstances, it may well be that the landlord company does not wish to be restricted even by the modest protection that the Bill will provide for the tenant. If a company does not wish to be so restricted, it has only to require the tenant to agree to contract-out.
It is nonsense to suggest that a tenant who wishes to renew his existing tenancy under a new agreement, or a would-be tenant who wishes to enter the licensed trade for the first time, is in an equal negotiating position with the landlord. Of course he is not, because the landlord owns the premises. If the landlord decides to contract-out, it is no good the tenant saying that he does not wish to contract-out because he simply will not have his tenancy renewed or if he is a newcomer, he will not get the tenancy in the first place. That is at the heart of the problem.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that contracting-out should not be permitted for licensed premises. Having made it quite clear that it 'was considering the matter in terms of competition, it stated in paragraph 12.138:
We have set out in some detail our view that the tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen".
It continued in paragraph 12.141:
we recommend that there should be no right on the part of the parties to contract out of the provsions contained in Part II of that Act, except for a preliminary period not exceeding one year.
It was quite clear that to improve competition and enhance the position of licensees as independent business men, contracting-out of the Landlord and Tenant Act should not be allowed in that type of business.
The Opposition and the National Licensed Victuallers Association think that the former Secretary of State Lord Young got it right when he said that he was minded to implement that and other recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He was certainly wrong about some other recommendations, but he was undoubtedly right about the narrow section of the report that related to the rights of tenants, the protection of tenants and the relationship between tenants and landlords.
It is interesting that the Opposition seek to further the Government's alleged competition policy and their policy of protecting the interests of small businesses, and the Minister is opposing that. It is ironic, but it is a fact. The Opposition are on the side of the small businesses and, unfortunately, the Government are on the side of the big businesses, and, in the case of a conflict, the rights of the small businesses —the tenant licensees —will not be protected.
We are entitled to ask why the Government did that complete about-turn. The then Secretary of State said that he was minded to implement those recommendations, yet within a few weeks he changed his mind. He decided that the extra protection for tenants that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had recommended should not be implemented. Since then, we have been told of the reason for that. The Brewers Society and some brewery companies told Ministers that they did not like that proposal. That much was made crystal clear in mid-1989, long before the Bill appeared.
4.15 pm
There are several other proposals that the brewers do not like, but nevertheless the Government will proceed with them. The large brewers are not happy about the disposal of many tied houses, and weakening the tie among those that remain. Why are the Government proceeding with the proposals that brewers do not like —tied houses, guest beers and so on —but dropping the proposals on the protection of tenants?
That is clearly an example of sweetening the pill. Brewers will have a bitter pill to swallow, but it appears to me that Ministers believe that by abandoning the proposal to give tenants additional protection that bitter pill will be sweetened. The Government are sacrificing the interests of tenants, who have been made pawns in this high-powered game between the Government and the brewers.
I am convinced that many brewers will not insist on contracting-out, and I have been assured on that point by several representatives of large breweries, but the fact that the Brewers Society has insisted that the contracting-out provisions remain in the Bill must mean that in certain cases brewers intend to use them. Otherwise, there would be no point in its insisting that those provisions should remain in the legislation.
I do not doubt the good faith of the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I am convinced, and have been throughout, that, within the constraints imposed on him, he is anxious to do his best for his tenants. I should welcome his assurance that contracting-out will be closely monitored. I shall start that sentence again when the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has stopped talking to him. Will he assure us that he will monitor contracting-out and that if it appears excessive he will consider introducing new legislation to stop it?
That is a fair request, because if contracting-out takes place on a significant scale the purpose of the Bill will be destroyed. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is anxious to see the Bill operated properly and to ensure that the protection that he wishes to provide tenants is in place. I am, therefore, sure that he would not be happy if contracting-out took place on a large scale. I hope that he will assure us that the position will be monitored and that if there is an abuse of contracting-out new legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This classic issue presents itself repeatedly and involves the difference between the requirement for more competition and freedom, which will stimulate more business and industry, and the requirement to protect the weaker party. It arises particularly in landlord and tenant legislation and it is what the tenant protection elements of the law have been all about for

many years. By and large, there is a tendency to err on the side of the tenant and to protect his interests against those of the landlord. Successive Governments, including the present Conservative Government, have operated in that way, but some of us believe that the protective elements tend to frustrate the purpose of the new laws.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), who represents certain interests, that this is a sinister arrangement to sweeeten the pill for the brewer. As I represent the brewing centre of England and, of course, have a well-known and declared interest on that industry's behalf, one would not expect me to accept the view that the brewers aim to exploit tenants by including in the Bill a provision whereby brewers can easily opt out of the restriction.
From time to time, there will be a temptation to take advantage of the contracting-out provision. That is human and business nature. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reached that conclusion in its report. This issue is a potential irritant between landlord and tenants. In a sense, I am speaking on behalf not of the great brewers of Burton upon Trent but of the licensees, the tenants of the great public houses, as the weaker party to the contract. I therefore have a common cause with the hon. Member for Rotherham.
The Government should build into the Bill a mite more protection for the licensed victualler —the tenant. I make that claim because it would be better for the relationships that are to exist between landlord and tenant. The tenant should not think that a provision in the legislation will work against his interests. I also make that claim because the Government would not wish to be seen to introduce a measure erring on the side of the brewer and against the tenant. Peculiarly, perhaps, I thus find myself speaking against the interests that I normally represent. Not all the brewers in Burton upon Trent are big —there are some very small ones such as Burton Bridge and Heritage.
In order that justice may be seen to be done, any temptation to think that the contracting-out provisions are built in for the benefit of the stronger party should be mitigated by more action than is shown in the Bill. On balance, the Government should take seriously the amendments that have been tabled and be prepared to amend the Bill, although perhaps not precisely in those terms, to give more confidence to licensees. I know the brewers in my constituency very well and I can state that view, knowing that it is not their intention to exploit licensees. It may not, strictly speaking, be necessary to make such a change in the Bill but so that everybody may confidently believe that the Bill is even-handed and will protect licensees, I ask that the proposed change or a change approximating to it should be introduced.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the Opposition and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I shall deal with some of the points that they made and then state the Government's position on this important subject.
It is true that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 arose out of the rebuilding of urban areas —against a different background. But the important clause in the Bill is based on legislation introduced by the Labour Administration in 1969, against a very different background indeed, and I think that the reasons given by that Labour Government


hold true today. The Labour Government were concerned about the impact on the availability of business accommodation that would follow if a contracting-out clause were not introduced. The then Solicitor-General made the matter clear:
one must hold a balance between what is needed for the effective protection of tenants and what would fetter freedom of contract to such an extent that lettings were discouraged and worthwhile accommodation left unoccupied."—[Official Report, 24 June 1969; Vol. 785, c. 1424.]
That is the nub of our case. The Government accept the wisdom of the Labour proposal in 1969, which created a balance in tenants' and landlords' rights that has lasted for the past 21 years and which will now be applied to include brewing landlords and their tenants, too. The provision was based on an independent study from the Law Commission, which also expressed its fears about the non-availability of tenancies. It was against that background that the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Act were made.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) rightly said that the issue before the House is whether we have struck the right balance between landlords' and tenants' interests. The House is united in wanting to achieve a fair balance between landlord and tenant which provides something in the commercial arrangement for the benefit of both parties so that enough tenancies are available. The Government contend that that is best supplied in the form of the balance in the 1954 Act as amended in 1969.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North also asked the important question whether undue pressure could be exerted on tenants as a result of the contracting-out proposal. It may be helpful if I remind the House how the contracting-out proposal works. Tenant and landlord have to go jointly to the court and seek its permission to have a contracted-out tenancy under the 1954 Act. That is, in itself, a protection against the very kind of undue pressure against which hon. Members wish to guard. The landlord and the tenant need to take separate legal advice from their lawyers and to go to court, and —among other things —the court must satisfy itself that both parties to the agreement know what they are entering into and understand the basis on which they are making their joint application. That is an important safeguard built into the judicial process relating to contracting-out.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is quite right that there is provision for taking legal advice on going to court, but that can only make a licensee aware of what his rights are; it will not affect the pressure that may be placed on him to go ahead with the matter even though he knows what his rights are. That is what bothers hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is one thing not to know one's rights; it is another to know one's rights and not to want to act because one feels that one is under pressure.

Mr. Redwood: I think that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that there is an important safeguard against a tenant unknowingly entering into a contract agreement because he has not been properly advised or there is not a formal process.

Mr. Barry Field: I apologise for not being present throughout the proceedings, but the Isle of Wight ferries were delayed by the severe weather. The Isle of Wight licensed victuallers association is worried about this point. As my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and I have the largest number of tied houses in the Whitbread brewery. The association is concerned that both new and existing tenancies may be put under considerable pressure, particularly when they take in host beer. Will the tenants negotiate as individuals? If so, they will face the considerable power of a large company. Surely that does not put tenants in a good position.

Mr. Redwood: The contract is entered into freely between two parties and the balance of power depends on the individual strengths of the local markets and the circumstances at the time.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Redwood: If I may, I shall deal with one point at a time. That may be helpful to the House and it is difficult to deal with three at a time.
The tenant will have the advice that he wants, for example, from the NLVA, which is diligent and helpful, and from his legal adviser. The worry is that if such an arrangement is not allowed, many people who want tenancies simply will not be able to get them. We should remember that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission exempted the first 12 months in its recommendation, specifically because many people who want to become tenants will have no track record and, therefore, will be unlikely to qualify as tenants, so a trial period is needed for them to introduce themselves to the brewers and for the brewers to make an assessment. Unfortunately, if that is only for 12 months and not thereafter, the market will become ossified and many subsequent potential new entrants will not have the same facility as those in the 12-month period.

Mr. David Martin: Can my hon. Friend deal with the fear that, although there is contracting-out, if third parties or a potential tenant does not agree to contract-out, a landlord will be inclined to find someone who will and say to the others, "If you won't, they will, so I will give it to them"?

Mr. Redwood: The purpose of the legislation is to give tenants greater security of tenure. The House is losing sight of the fundamental reason why the House is united on the principle of extending landlord-tenant protection to those categories of tenant. It would not be possible for a brewer to force out a tenant on that basis, unless he could terminate the tenancy for one of the restricted reasons given in the landlord and tenant legislation. That is protection which tenants do not have now which is why the NLVA urged me to introduce the Bill as soon as possible. The Government have introduced it at the earliest available opportunity to extend that protection as soon as the Bill can receive Royal Assent and the due number of weeks have passed for it to come into effect.

Mr. Crowther: Will the Minister address the following scenario? A tenant, who has been running his business for a long time and has developed a good business, even without the benefit of landlord and tenant legislation


protection, may think that because this Bill is passed he will have protection under this legislation. When his existing tenancy expires, he will start talking to the landlord about his new tenancy which he will expect to be covered by landlord and tenant legislation protection. The landlord will say, "Hang on, I have decided that we shall contract-out." The tenant will say, "Surely a new Bill has gone through Parliament." The landlord will say, "I cannot help that. You will agree to go with me to the court and seek consent for contracting-out. Otherwise, your tenancy is finished and I shall find a new tenant." How will that problem be overcome? That is most worrying and I should like the Minister to comment on it.

Mr. Redwood: The purpose of the legislation for all the tenancies covered by it is to necessitate, for the first time for pub tenancies, that a landlord has one of a limited number of reasons for terminating a tenancy. That is why the extra protection is being granted by the legislation. That is the point of it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I took an office in my constituency under precisely those conditions, with an opting-out clause. I had no choice as the landlord insisted on that, so I went along with it. For an office, that does not matter that much, but for a tenancy the entire living depends on the location. The Minister is saying both that tenants need protection against landlords who may not operate fairly, and that protection should be removed for precisely those landlords against whom the tenants need protecting.

Mr. Redwood: I am not doing that. The legislation will provide the protection that all hon. Members want. After that, where the case is governed by the legislation, there will be a limited number of circumstances in which the tenancy can be terminated. That is why everyone agrees that we should extend that protection. It is rather similar to the good debate in Committee on the question of the widows' year and the protection for them. We all agreed that a widow should not be driven out of the tenancy on the death of her husband. However, the protection offered in the legislation is more generous and comprehensive for the widow, if she is the nominated successor of the deceased publican, than would have been the case under the amendments proposed in Committee, which is why I did not accept them. It is not that I wish widows to end up on the streets, but that I believe that the balance of legislation offers them a better break than the more limited proposal in the amendment. There is a great deal of good news in this legislation. The Government are pleased to be introducing it and I know that it is welcomed by tenants, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) kindly said. That is the basis of the settlement.
I wish to deal with points that are relevant to the amendment. First, the Government are concerned not to reduce the number of tenancies available by introducing the wrong type of legislation to govern tenant security. One of the consequences of the Opposition's proposal is likely to be a reduction in the number of tenancies. That would be bad news for a number of people who would like to become tenants, and even for those who are already tenants. It might intensify the search for gateway exits by the landlord breweries for certain tenancies.
Secondly, the amendment would be especially harsh on the untried entrant —the person who wishes to enter the pub trade and who may turn out to be a good landlord, providing more life and change in landlord-tenant business. Without that type of contracted-out tenancy arrangement, it would be difficult to have the right number of new entrants coming forward, and thereby allow brewers to give them the opportunity to prove themselves.
Thirdly, there is a code of practice operated by the Brewers Society, which I know the hon. Member for Rotherham has welcomed. It will continue to be used by many reputable brewers, in addition to the provisions in the legislation that will become legally binding.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said about new developments and changes in the type of pubs on offer within new town centres. The hon. Gentleman makes my fourth point for me. It is because it is a changing industry where the location and style of pubs are changing, and new pubs are becoming available in new types of development, that there needs to be some flexibility to allow new entrants and those who wish to experiment with a different style of tenancy within the pub framework. That may necessitate different marketing and a different approach to the business. That is what the provision in the Law of Property Act 1969 facilitates and permits.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North that amendment No. 3 is the key amendment by which to judge the legislation. I read in the Morning Advertiser on 26 February that three matters were crucial to the test of the legislation and that there would be an opportunity to debate all of them on amendments today. It referred to the inclusion of a right-to-buy clause, and the introduction of the widows' year. The hon. Gentleman might concede that his amendment is not the crucial one by which to judge the balance of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he is taking back his words. There are a number of ways to judge the balance in the legislation between landlords and tenants.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that, of the amendments that we tabled, No. 3 is the key one? Had other amendments been called that would still have been so. I had hoped that the Minister recognised from the contributions of some of his hon. Friends that if the amendment is not accepted many of the other provisions in the Bill will be meaningless. That is the point we have tried to establish.

Mr. Redwood: Therein lays the disagreement between us. I do not believe that the amendment is a key one in relationship to the range of amendments looked at in Committee. This is an important debate, but it is not the most important, over and above the other amendments examined.
I was disappointed that the Opposition did not table new amendments in the light of our debates in Committee. I felt that we had a good Committee stage, that we made a lot of progress, found some common ground and identified some problems. I thought that the Opposition would introduce new amendments that addressed what the Committee had debated. Instead, we are faced with amendments that were debated extensively in Committee.


Those amendments were considerably damaged in Committee because they did not make sense in relation to the balance in the landlord and tenant legislation.

Mr. Dixon: If, in Committee, the Minister agreed with some of the Opposition's arguments, it was up to him to table amendments on Report; it is not up to the Opposition.

Mr. Redwood: If I thought that there were things that needed varying in the balance of the legislation I would have introduced amendments today. If the hon. Gentleman refers back to the text of our Committee proceedings he will see that in a number of important respects, such as the widows' year and the right to buy, the amendments tabled did not offer anything above what already existed in legislation or in the framework that governs the relationship between the landlord and tenant. That is why I am happy with the Bill and recommend it to the House.
I suggest that the House votes against the amendment, as it would not improve the Bill and would make life a lot more difficult for many people who want to become the tenants of brewers.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I submit that the Government's position on this Bill is clear—not for the reasons suggested by the Minister —as they are prone before the brewing interests. Today those interests have been much more fairly represented than those of the tenants.
The amendment concerns contracting out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) is right in saying that the world has changed in the intervening 35 years, but, sadly, some things do not change—for example, the desire of the stronger partner in any agreement to obtain more than his or her fair share of influence over it. There is a strong desire to put one over on the other participant. The Bill fails to address that problem. That is its fundamental weakness and why we tabled the amendment.
We believe that the balance of interest must be maintained, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has said, at a time of great change in the industry. It is facing a major reorganisation and we remain convinced that it will not benefit the tenant licensee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) is well known for the vigour with which he promotes the case of the National Licensed Victuallers Association. He is also well known for the forthright way in which he declares his interest in any matter on which he speaks to the House. I wish that his example was followed more widely.
My hon. Friend has quoted several detailed examples of the fears that contracting-out raises in the minds of tenants and their representatives. I do not intend to cite any more evidence in support of our case today as I believe it has been proved.
My hon. Friends and I are not minded to accept the Minister's lightly given assurances. We shall press the amendment to a Division because of the Minister's failure to produce any evidence to show that both parties will benefit from the contracting-out provisions.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 160.Division No. 96

Division No. 96
[4.44 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Alton, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Kennedy, Charles


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ron


Blair, Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McWilliam, John


Caborn, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Michael, Alun


Cartwright, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cohen, Harry
Mowlam, Marjorie


Coleman, Donald
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Neill, Martin


Cox, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan
Pike, Peter L.


Cunningham, Dr John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Prescott, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Fisher, Mark
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Heffer, Eric S.



Henderson, Doug
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Tony Banks and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
 Mr. John Cummings.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amos, Alan
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifle)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)






Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Redwood, John


Latham, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhodes James, Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Maclean, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shelton, Sir William


Madel, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tredinnick, David


Mudd, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Powell, William (Corby)
 Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, and Prince of Wales's consent, signified].

Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It gives me pleasure to move the Third Reading of this legislation which will represent a major advance in the security offered to tenants. It is part of the package of measures brought forward as a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the brewery industry and was designed to give to the tenants of brewers and other pub landlords the same protection as is available to other business tenants.
I know that the measure is welcomed by the National Licensed Victuallers Association and by Members on both sides of the House who wish to see an improvement in the protection of tenants in this important industry. The debates in Committee have been based on an agreement that there should be an improvement in the protection offered to tenants, but there will be detailed debates about the exact nature of that protection, the balance struck in the landlord and tenant legislation and the way in which it might be improved.
I have sought to show in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the well tried and tested balance of this legislation, introduced in 1954 by a Conservative Administration and amended and improved by a Labour Administration in 1969, is the right balance. It will assure tenants that they have reasonable protection of their tenancies and assure landlords that it is still a worthwhile

business relationship for them to enter into, so that the supply of tenancies will not dry up. Those seeking to become publicans will thus not be impeded or prevented by over-protective legislation.
During the debate I have been asked by Members to give some assurance about the kind of monitoring that will take place once the legislation has received Royal Assent. I will give two pledges. There will be monitoring of the general balance of landlord and tenant legislation as the Department of the Environment goes about its business as custodians of the corpus of the law and seeing that it is modern and up to date. There will also be monitoring by the competition authorities to ensure that the package of measures presented by the Government to implement the findings of the MMC report have a good impact on the brewing industry as a whole. I have already said to the NLVA that its views will be welcomed through the usual channels if it wishes to make points about the way in which the new settlement for the brewing industry is developing.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. He may have noticed that I deliberately abstained in the last vote because I was not satisfied that he had given that assurance hitherto. Will he go one stage further? Monitoring is all very well, but if it is discovered that something is going wrong and tenants are being exploited by landlords, will he be prepared to suggest amendments to the legislation to provide the kind of protection envisaged in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?

Mr. Redwood: I have explained that we must examine the legislation as a whole as it affects all business tenancies. I have also explained that there are a number of safeguards within the structure of that well tried and tested legislation —most notably the fact that the tenant and landlord have to go to court. They must jointly and severally present their wish to contract out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and it is that court process which provides the best guarantee that hon. Members seek.
The legislation must be seen against the background of the changes in the brewing industry. A number of changes were under way anyway because of economic change within the industry. The nature and style of pubs are changing. Brewers were looking again at their types of asset portfolios and deciding whether it was right for them to be both brewers and pub owners. The MMC report, which found against the brewers on a public interest basis, has resulted in measures which will serve to reduce and weaken the ties between brewers and their tenants. That is welcomed on both sides of the House as being in the interests of a more competitive industry and of a better deal for the customers of pubs. There may well also be benefits for the licensees themselves, many of whom want parts of the MMC report implemented and have made representations accordingly.
In the course of the debates, the Committee and the House have examined the position of widows. I said a few minutes ago that the Government were anxious to see that widows were well protected. I repeat that under this legislation they will be able to take over tenancies from their deceased husbands if those husbands have nominated them as their successors. Widows will then have all the rights and obligations of the tenancies previously enjoyed by the landlords who predeceased them. That is an important advance for widows in the industry, which is


distinct from some other sorts of business tenancy in that the business will also often be the living accommodation of the tenant concerned.
The Opposition have raised the issue of the right to buy. In their proposals on that right they limited themselves to the idea that in a limited number of cases there would be an explicit legal right to buy at best price by the tenant. The Government welcome the opportunity for tenants to buy their pubs, but it is in the commercial interests of the brewer to sell his pub for the best price. I am sure that many brewers thinking of selling pubs will also think of offering them to the tenants and will be open to approaches from the tenants if the latter can come up with the sort of good price that the Opposition had in mind. I cannot see that the Opposition amendment would make much difference to that right. Tenants may well buy their pubs more commonly from their brewer landlords and we should be happy about that if it arose out of usual commercial arrangements within the industry.
Contracting out has been extensively debated and in Committee we also looked into the issue of goodwill. Any departures from the regime identified in the landlord and tenant legislation would require careful consideration as they would affect the delicate balance between landlord and tenant set out in the law. However, I have listened carefuly to the comments in Committee and to other representations on this subject, especially to the argument that publicans should be entitled to compensation at a higher multiplier on rateable value than other tenants as they are usually in the same business as their landlords.
Those are arguments of substance on which I continue to hold an open mind. The representations will need to be considered not only from the perspective of the brewing industry but in the wider framework of the provisions for business tenants in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, for which the Department of the Environment has general responsibility. Ministers will be looking at the script of today's debate and the Committee debates for that and for other reasons.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I understand that compensation is dealt with by the Department of the Environment, and I hope that it will examine the issue seriously. It was discussed fully on Second Reading and at great length in Committee. Although we should not deviate from the Landlord and Tenant Act more than necessary, this problem must be dealt with because many tenants work in pubs for many years only to find at the end of that time that the brewery can take back the pub and their years of work may have amounted to nothing. If the Department of the Environment could be persuaded to use a higher multiplier, that might overcome some of the objections in this area.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has professional experience in related subjects. He knows that the valuation of goodwill is extremely difficult and to try to incorporate it in the legislation by means of the amendment moved today would be neither possible nor desirable, given the compexities in the legislation. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment, but the issue must be examined in the context of level treatment as between different types of business tenancy, and of the balance in the legislation.
By any standards this is the most important advance in tenant protection since the war. The Government are pleased to bring forward this legislation, which was sought

by certain Opposition Members as well as by Conservative Members. It was also sought by the NLVA, which has actively put its case across. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by the Opposition and by the NLVA in its correspondence with many hon. Members. A number of hon. Members have written to me; to list them all would take too long, but I hope that my remarks today and my replies in correspondence will meet their concerns. On issues such as widows' rights, this is an important advance, and I am proud to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Henderson: As the House will recall, the Opposition originally intended to support the Bill in principle, as we said clearly on Second Reading. I trust that that impression was reinforced in Committee. Throughout the Opposition have attempted to put genuine points to the Government, of which there were four or five principal ones in Committee.
The amendment that we moved on Report emphasised what we believed to be the key modification required to give the legislation teeth, but throughout our proceedings the Government have put obstacles in our path. The Minister has already acknowledged that there was a good debate in Committee. There were points of agreement, and some new points with which the Government had considerable sympathy were made. But the Minister's praise for his colleagues in Committee has been more generous than his actions. The truth is that this is the same Bill, on Third Reading, as the one which the Government presented to the House.
The Minister has said that the legislation enhancing tenants' protection is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the industry to have come before the House. I agree, but I enter the caveat that it is only potentially the most important legislation. Because of the Government's failure to agree to modifications put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the legislation will be left considerably weaker than would have been desirable —and necessary to achieve unanimous support.
The Government have not listened to the arguments —for example, about the timing of the legislation. If too long a period is allowed in which contracts can be renewed, undue pressure is placed on tenants by brewers to change contracts to the disadvantage of the tenant. That will also be disadvantageous to competition in the industry, and it will ultimately be disadvantageous to the consumer.
The Government have failed to acknowledge the importance of what is referred to as the right to buy. In Committee the Government acknowledged that that issue will rear its head regularly as brewers begin to dispose of tenancies, swap them and seek to change the nature of tenancy contracts. At that time the issue of what happens to the existing tenant will arise. Will he have rights that accrue because of his commitment to the business and the tenancy? In Committee the Government acknowledged that the Opposition proposals about that were limited and related only to a specific proposal where a brewer disposes of a tenancy to a third party non-brewer. It did not cover a brewer disposing of a tenancy to another brewer.
The suggestion advanced by the Opposition in Committee related to the right to buy so that when a brewer feels that there is a need for commercial or other reasons to dispose of a tenancy the person or body that has the first right to buy is the sitting tenant. There was no


question of the brewer losing out if that suggestion had been accepted because encompassed in the suggestion was the clear intention that the brewer would get the appropriate rate for the tenancy.
Surely a tenant who has given a lengthy commitment to a business the success of which has been largely, if not solely, due to the efforts of that tenant should accrue some property rights. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, and that as the Bill goes to another place he will liaise to achieve modifications to strengthen the legislation. I cannot understand the Government's attitude in this matter. How can they say that a council house tenant can accrue property rights and that the management of a company that is to be disposed of can accrue management rights that would lead to a management buy-out while saying that there is no equivalent accrual for the tenant of a brewery house?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there is an absolute right for a management buy-out. There is no such right in business law in Britain. There are voluntary agreements in the same way as there can be voluntary agreements for publicans to buy pubs from their landlords. Business and residential tenancies are on a different basis, and to introduce a right to buy in one sector of the business tenancy market would give rise to all sorts of distortions between this and other types of business.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister should have thought about my point before he intervened. We are not suggesting that. The Government have been keen to dispose of public sector investments such as the National Freight Corporation. The first thing that they try to do is to establish that there is a management buy-out right and management is encouraged to come forward with proposals so that it can continue to earn the property rights that it has established through its commitment to the business. It is completely inconsistent for the Government not to recognise that when a brewery is disposing of a tenanted public house property rights should accrue.
What is so different about pub tenants? Do they not want to make a contribution to the success of a business and earn property rights? Should they not benefit from any improvement in a competitive environment? Have the Government moved away from their original position, and are they now saying that they no longer give ideological support to property rights?
When it suits the Government, there is one law for Conservative ideology and quite another when the Conservative party's significant paymasters seem likely to be tied by legislation. Is the relationship between the brewer and the tenant to be linked to the strong support that brewers have traditionally given to the Conservative party? Has Conservative ideology been extended to that front as well? The Government have failed to face the genuine points made about property rights for pub tenants.
We heard in Committee that the Government have sympathy for the widow's clause, or what could be called the Annie Walker clause. The Minister spoke about that today. Pub tenants will be looking for more than sympathy if the existing legislation is the only protection that may be

given to a spouse on the death of his or her partner.If there is any argument about the estate, the surviving spouse could be involved in lengthy arguments about its disposal before being able to clarify whether he or she would be able to continue with the tenancy. Suggestions about that were advanced by the Opposition and others in Committee but they were not accepted. If the Government are prepared further to consider the matter and perhaps to talk to their colleagues in another place, protection for a spouse could be built into the legislation. That would eliminate the worry about whether the spouse is to benefit from any of the estate and would make an important contribution to strengthening the legislation.
The Government have failed to listen to arguments about compensation, some of which were advanced vehemently by Conservative Members. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has an open mind on the matter. Pub tenants could lose their tenancies because of a change in circumstances faced by breweries, and those people will be looking for more than an open mind. They will seek a firm commitment that in the event of them having to dispose of their tenancies they will get fair compensation. They do not want to be dragged through endless court cases in an attempt to establish that they have a right to higher compensation.
If such court cases ensue, it is clear that the people involved would be unattractive propositions to secure a future tenancy with the same or another brewer. If compensation were automatic it would be accepted by the industry, and when commercial circumstances changed giving rise to a legitimate need for a brewer to dispose of a pub, nothing would be held against the tenant who insisted on receiving the proper compensation. The tenant would be free to secure another tenancy to protect his living. That is important, and it is not enough for the Government to say that they will keep an open mind. It is incumbent on them to make firm proposals.
The Government have also failed Scotland. In Committee it was said that hundreds of tenancies in Scotland are not covered by the legislation. By and large, the same circumstances exist there, although the market in Scotland is dominated by two brewery groups. Tenants in Scotland will look for some protection. I understand the problems of incorporating Scottish measures in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will bring forward other appropriate legislation to protect the industry and the tenants.
I protest about the Government's failure to take account of the arguments in relation to the contracting-out amendment that has just been lost on a vote. It was important in building up comprehensive and balanced legislation that would regulate the industry in the future and would give the tenant the necessary degree of protection, but would not completely hamstring the brewer. It is absolutely crucial that there should be such a provision. It is not enough for the Government to talk about monitoring what will happen and about being prepared to look at the situation in future.
It is quite clear, from the arguments that were put forward in previous debates in this House, that many hon. Members recognise that this is not a question of landlord and tenant going hand-in-hand to court and saying, "Please may we contract out so that we may make our own arrangements?" That is not the way that the world works; certainly it is not the way that the business world works. Inevitably, human nature being what it is, landlords would


seek to sign agreements that included provision for contracting out of the legislation, and, through time, tenants who did not accept those clauses would not be offered tenancies.
Another danger is that brewery companies could get together and form an unofficial, informal cartel to protect the interests of the brewer landlord. Increasingly, I believe, tenants would be offered only contracts on a mutually agreed basis that were not covered by the Act. People who know the industry will realise that, inevitably, those contracts would be weaker than contracts signed on a free basis but with minimum protection built in by the legislation.
The real test of the Government's willingness to listen to the arguments at all stages of the progress of this Bill is whether they are prepared to face up to the situation that has been presented in relation to contracting out. If they were so prepared, they would face up to the brewers' lobby. In that case, the silence that the brewers have maintained over recent months would soon give way to an outcry from them. I believe that the Government could have faced that situation and that they could have argued with the brewers that, in order to bring about balance, it was necessary to have a different relationship in respect of pub tenancies from that prevailing in the case of shops. Throughout the discussion of the Bill the Government have had ample opportunity to listen to the arguments, to take heed of the points that have been made, and to make accommodations.
I should have liked to be able to recommend firmly that the Opposition support the Third Reading of this Bill. However, those who have followed the debate will be able to draw no conclusion other than that the Government have not been prepared to listen, that there has been no movement from the Government on the main issues. There has been no movement on the issue of timing, on the issue of the right to buy, on the issue of compensation, or on the issue of protection for spouses. Above all, there has been no movement on the vexed question whether pub landlords and brewers should be able to contract out of the legislation.
Thus, the Bill is left ambiguous, unbalanced, spineless, and stacked in favour of the brewer. There are minor areas in which protection has been achieved for the tenant, but in all the circumstances I have grave misgivings about recommending that the Bill be given a Third Reading. My hon. Friend who will wind up for the Opposition may well be able to assist the House by giving some direction on the matter. I hope that, having heard the debate, he will feel that there would be merit in giving the Bill a Third Reading. However, as I have said, I have serious misgivings about letting the legislation proceed to the next stage.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has gone over the top. Manifestly this is, in essence, a good Bill. It is one that all sides have agreed is necessary and will be for the benefit of the industry. It is about the only good thing to have come out of the whole Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which the Government adopted too speedily and which will inevitably reduce the number of tied houses—indeed the number of public houses—and may even reduce the

number of British breweries as brewers have to choose between the capital value of their manufacturing element and the capital value of their tied house element. Already there are signs that brewers in my constituency are having to reassess their whole contribution to the industry. That is very sad, and it was a bad day when the Government committed themselves to accepting the report.
Today, however, we are dealing with the good aspect of the report—the aspect which gives licensees protection. One must ask whether the Bill is as good as it might be. I think the answer is that it is not perfect but that it is perfectable. I do not for one moment doubt the Government's good intentions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the assurances that he has given in response to interventions by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), by myself and, no doubt, by others expressing concern about monitoring.
I do not doubt that, in general, the brewers' intentions are good. After all, the good of the industry is their concern. That means also the good of the tenants, who are a vital part of the industry. If the tenants are unhappy or dissatisfied, the industry will not be so successful or so flourishing as it would be if they were happy. Nor do I share the conspiracy theory so beloved of the Opposition in regard to this and many other matters. But I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to go one small step further and to commit themselves to ensuring that the legislation would not act unfairly against the tenant in that it might result in undue pressure or inadequate compensation.
Here I must ask myself some questions. If I were a tenant, would I feel terribly reassured by the fact that I could get legal advice as to my legal rights? Would I feel terribly reassured by being able to go before a court and ask it to decide on those rights? Would I feel reassured by the Government's undertaking to monitor the Act, bearing in mind that they have given no further assurance? I must ask myself whether, in some circumstances, I might have fears that I could lose my livelihood and that, in the end, I might have no choice about entering into a contract to which I was very much the weaker party, and under which I might lay myself open to exploitation. When, as a hypothetical licensee, I ask myself those questions I have to reply that in some circumstances I might indeed have just those fears.
This is not a matter of life and death. It is not a matter of the utmost gravity. It is not a resigning matter. It is not a matter that will arise very often. However, it seems to me to be one in respect of which good will—in its common-sense meaning, not its legalistic meaning—might bring a more reassuring response from the Government. It would surely be sensible for the Government to show just a modicum more good will and to give that extra reassurance to a very particular kind of tenant—the tenant who stands to lose not only the roof over his head but his very livelihood and who is, therefore, more subject to pressure even than tenants in other circumstances.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he could not, at this late stage—or, if he would have to get involved in too many consultations before giving a commitment, when the matter comes before another place —give an undertaking that the Government will look again at the aspect of good will; that he will give the further reassurance that he will be prepared to act by further legislation if necessary if his monitoring turns up the conclusion that this legislation is not working as


effectively, efficiently or fairly as was intended. Perhaps in the Upper House that matter will be given greater consideration. That is the question that I ask of my hon. Friend, who I know as a reasonable, flexible, sensible, understanding and caring Minister. I ask him to give that gentle, insubstantial—except in its effect—assurance that the matter will be further considered when the Bill is presented to another place. If he will do so, I shall give the Bill my wholehearted support and not just my majority support with a minority of dissenting feeling.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I share the disappointment of other right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill reaches Third Reading in exactly the same form that it received its Second Reading. It is most unfortunate that the Government have failed to make even one concession. The Minister said that he has received letters from many right hon. and hon. Members—and no doubt letters from many of his own right hon. and hon. Friends were among them. Apparently, those letters had no more impact than all the arguments made in Committee and on Report. I share the hope that the Minister will introduce improvements to the Bill when it reaches the other place.
The tragedy is that we have totally failed to persuade the Minister that the business in question is unique and has many features that distinguish it from other types of premises. It is irrelevant to say, as the Minister did, that the Bill provides the same protection as that given to other types of business tenants. The tenants of licensed premises operate in wholly different circumstances.
I shall not bore the House by recounting the catalogue of features that distinguish licensed premises. The Minister has already acknowledged one of the most obvious—that in most cases the premises serve as the tenant's home as well as his place of business. That alone is good reason for providing additional protection. Also, the tenant himself must hold a licence, apart from that granted in respect of the premises. I know of no other business in which the individual running it must hold a licence so that his customers can consume on the premises the goods that he sells.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the individual can also lose his licence through circumstances beyond his control? For example, a person might come to his public house and cause a disturbance, and the police might then object to the publican continuing to hold his licence—the loss of which would also mean the loss of his livelihood.

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is certainly correct. Also, if a licensee loses his premises because of a decision by his landlord, unlike a butcher, draper or grocer, he cannot move into new premises just down the road and open another business. That is because the whole operation is controlled by a licensing system. The licensee of a public house is more vulnerable than an ordinary shopkeeper, which is another reason why he should be given additional protection.
Another unique feature is that the person carrying on the business does not own the goodwill of it. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report pointed out, he is very much in the position of being an employee of the

brewery. He is there to sell its products—but at the end of the day, there is nothing to cover him for goodwill. The MMC pointed out that people in that situation should be given extra protection, to strengthen their position as independent business men.
It is a question of allowing licensees to compete effectively. I thought that a Government committed to competition would be happy to accept amendments to improve the competitiveness of these small business men. Again, I hope that that argument will be taken into account. All is not yet lost, because the Bill has still to go to another place.
I took the view from the start that we would not be able to amend the Bill through a series of Divisions and that the only hope was to persuade the Minister with our arguments in the belief that he was capable of being swayed by them. We have not yet succeeded in that, but we hope for something in the next few weeks.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that our right-to-buy proposal is narrow in scope, as the Minister acknowledged in Committee. The narrowness of its scope led me to believe that the Government would accept it. It deals only with the situation in which a brewery is proposing to sell a public house to an individual or individual who is not in the brewing business. Only when the pub is going out of brewery ownership do we say that the existing tenant should have an opportunity of buying it at its market value. No one is suggesting that the brewery should lose any money in the transaction—but the man or woman already running the pub should be able to take over the premises if he or she wishes to do so. They may have to borrow the cash, but at least they will have an opportunity to invest in a business that they have been running for a long time.
A classic example of the need for a right-to-buy provision concerns a pleasant little Victorian pub in my constituency called the Butcher's Arms, which I frequent from time to time. Until a few months ago, it was owned by a company which is not primarily a brewery but which has brewing interests through an acquisition. When the tenant heard that the owners had decided to sell his pub, he asked to be allowed to make a bid for it. He offered a reasonable price, and the owners told him, "You'll need to improve your offer a little because you have a rival. If you can make your price a little higher, you'll be all right." The licensee accordingly increased his bid by £10,000 and waited for the result.
He heard the outcome not from the owners but from his rival, who walked into his premises one day and said, "I've bought your pub." That is not a very nice thing to happen to any licensee. After only a few weeks, that same pub is again on the market at a price £45,000 higher than that at which it was sold at the end of last year, which is a 50 per cent. increase. Such incidents are not helpful to the trade and certainly not helpful to a licensee trying to keep his business running while the ownership of his pub keeps changing hands.
I regret that the Minister has been unable to find a solution on compensation. He acknowledges that there is a problem, so I hope that he will find a suitable formula before the Bill goes to the Lords. He says that he still has an open mind, so I hope that he will pay particular attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) in Committee.
I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Ilford, North was very helpful, straightforward and clear. He spoke on the basis of his long experience. At the third sitting of the Standing Committee he said:
The only answer that I can see is for the goodwill to be valued when the tenant first takes the lease and revalued when he goes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 January 1990; c. 64.]
What could be simpler than that? The Minister says that it would be difficult to write that into the legislation.

Mr. Bendall: I consulted the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which has some knowledge of valuing. There is a problem with valuing goodwill on the way in and the way out. Its suggestion was that the multiplier on the rateable value for pub tenancies should be greater than the multiplier normally afforded.

Mr. Crowther: I am grateful for that intervention. I cannot dispute expert professional opinion, but I do not understand why the valuation of goodwill should be terribly difficult at the beginning and at the end of a tenancy, because other businesses are bought or sold on that basis. I should have thought that the use of the multiplier on the rateable value would be a less realistic method, in the sense that it would not take account of the extent to which the business has improved during the time that the tenant was in the premises. Whichever way it is done, there is a case for providing more compensation when businesses are repossessed by the landlord for management. It is a matter of justice.
I accept that there are difficulties, and I do not pretend that it is a simple matter, but, after all, Ministers are in the business of providing solutions. I should have thought that that is the Government's job in such a case. We are talking about justice, and I hope that the Minister will find a way to provide justice in this matter. If he does that, it will be a better Bill than it is at present.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North that at present the Bill falls a long way short of what is desirable. Obviously it is an advance, but not as major an advance as the Minister suggests. It falls down on a lot of matters, and we have done our best to demonstrate how the Bill could be improved. I am sorry that we have not managed to persuade the Government.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about a large number of small business men. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we should encourage small businesses in every way that we can. More protection is needed for small business men, who serve a useful purpose in the community, than is so far provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The House will be aware that I was not selected to serve on the Standing Committee, but I have read the debates, and I want to make a few comments on a Bill which has, as hon. Members have pointed out, reached this stage unamended.
I start with the premise that the Bill was intended to improve the lot of people whose business in the licensed trade is often also their home, and that that is a good thing. I support the general thrust of the Bill. I am glad that the Government will incorporate the licensed trade into the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
I am also reassured by the fact that the concern that I expressed on Second Reading about the widows' year can

be properly covered by the general Landlord and Tenant Act provision. That will reassure those widows who thought that they might be threatened, particularly after the sudden death of their husbands who were tenants. I understand that they will have the statutory assurance of being able to succeed to the tenancy, irrespective of the fact that they may have entered into any other apparent agreement that would give them fewer rights. I hope that the Minister will reassure me in his winding-up speech that I have understood the matter correctly. Tenants might have signed an agreement that was short of an opting-out agreement but, on the face of it, appeared to mean that after seven, 14 or 28 days they would no longer be able to remain. They will now be overridden by the statutory provisions of the 1954 Act. If that is correct, it is a good thing, and I welcome it.
I listened to what the Minister said about the period between now and July 1992. In Committee the Under-Secretary confirmed that 90 per cent. of tenancies will fall due to be renewed in the three years between July 1989 and July 1992. Effectively, other than in a few exceptional cases, there will be a complete turnover of tenants during that period. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for all tenancies to be reviewed before the Act bites in 1992.

Mr. Redwood: The 90 per cent. figure refers to brewery-owned tenancies. The transitional provisions are such that, if the tenancy comes up for renewal prior to 1992, it will come under the security of this legislation. Tenancies that have not been renewed before 1992 will automatically come under the legislation.

Mr. Hughes: I am concerned that a substantial number of tenancies will expire under the present arrangements between the passing of the Bill and 1992 when the Bill bites and will cover them. [Interruption.] The Minister says no. As I understand it, the whole debate in Committee was about whether the legislation should have immediate effect or take effect in 1992. An amendment was tabled to alter 1992 to 1990 so that there would be no gap. The Ministers' argument was that it would be unfair to impose the new regime on people who had entered into a contract before the legislation was passed and therefore it was only right that the new regime to bring licensed premises under the 1954 Act should come into force after a period of time in which many of the people affected would have had the opportunity to enter new tenancy agreements. Although there will be a provision for opting-out, many present tenants whose tenancies will end are unprotected by the 1954 legislation, and they will not have full statutory protection if they enter a new agreement before 1992.
The Minister said that he will monitor carefully what happens. I am concerned that there will be a danger that in the next two years a potentially large number of brewers may want to use the opportunities that they have at present but will not have post-1992. Unless there is a speedy response to any information that comes forward, monitoring will not produce the answers in time to be of use.

Mr. Redwood: The two operative dates are July 1989 and July 1992. Between those dates, expiring tenancies come under legislation, but 10 per cent. of brewery tenancies will not have been renewed in the transitional period, and when they come up for renewal either shortly after 1992 or a long time afterwards they will


automatically come under the protection of the Act, although the tenancies have not been renewed. Therefore, I do not think that matters are quite as the hon. Gentleman is saying they are.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister give a figure which he did not give, as far as I remember, in Committee? What percentage of current tenancies held in the whole of the licensed trade will come up for renewal between the passage of the Bill, assuming it is passed in the next few months, and July 1922? Obviously some tenancies must be at risk in that period.

Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the transitional period. We estimate that 90 per cent. of brewery-owned tenancies will be protected by the transitional provisions, while the residual 10 per cent. will receive such protection automatically in July 1992. I have no figures relating to the non-brewery tenancies, as they are a much more amorphous grouping, and I understand that there is no easy way of establishing the proportion. Given that the typical brewery tenancy lasts for three years, however, the hon. Gentleman can see for himself.

Mr. Hughes: Between now and 1992, when the Act will come fully into force, developments must be monitored responsibly Clearly the most effective monitor is the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to ensure that if the association produces evidence of significant "exploitation" by the brewers, he will contemplate prompt legislation. Only a minor amendment would be necessary to protect tenants' rights, and Conservative as well as Opposition Members have asked the Minister for such an assurance.
Clearly, the opting-out provision will increase the NLVA's responsibility; it will be up to those who advise tenants to ensure that they are not dragooned into signing an exemption agreement with the brewery. As the Minister well knows, it is always difficult to go behind the face of agreements. It is difficult to disprove, in law, the validity of a contract that appears to have been entered into on a valid basis. Pressure is imposed behind the scenes, and a document eventually appears detailing an agreement containing an exemption clause, but the events leading up to that agreement may not bear revelation.
Because it will rarely be possible to look behind the scenes, it is vital for us to make it clear that, once the new regime comes into operation with the exemption possibility always there, the NLVA and others who advise licensees and tenants must explain that they need not agree to an exemption. The presumption in the law must be that they will be covered by that law, although if tenants wish to opt out they should be allowed to do so. In some circumstances, of course, the deal that they are offered will be acceptable, but I hope that they will be much more alert to their rights following the enactment of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and others have expressed the hope that the Minister—who has said that he retains an open mind about some aspects of the Bill—will have an opportunity to reflect further when it goes to another place, and will accept the advice from people in the business that tighter protection is required. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to oppose Third Reading; that would remove some of the protection that

will be provided in due course, which would be neither in the interests of tenants nor in the general interest. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister, and those who take charge of the Bill in the Lords, will not assume from the probable lack of opposition to its Third Reading that further improvements are not necessary. As the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, we are talking not only about businesses, but about homes and livelihoods: in that regard, licensed tenants are a special category, distinct from others who are protected by the 1954 Act.

Mr. Dixon: I whipped the Bill through its Committee stage, and it was a good Committee stage; constructive arguments were put by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The only hon. Member who did not come up with anything constructive was the Minister. Although I was impressed by the number of adjectives used by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to describe him, I am afraid that none of them could have come from my mouth, for I am thoroughly disappointed by his failure to accept any of our constructive suggestions.
The idea of the Committee stage, at which amendments were tabled, was to achieve a better and fairer balance, and we attempted to do the same today. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) chaired the Committee, and I have no doubt that he, too, is disappointed. We had gathered from some of the Minister's remarks in Committee that the Government would table appropriate amendments on Report.
I have received a letter from a Mr. Aitkenhead, the NLVA's north-east councillor. His observations about contracting-out have been echoed today by hon. Members of both sides of the House. Mr. Aitkenhead's first point is that some amendment to the Bill is vital. He also says that, when brewery companies sell public houses to non-brewers, the sitting tenant should be given the first option to purchase, and I agree with that as well. His third point is:
Brewery companies should not take houses back for management without agreeing satisfactory terms with the sitting tenant".
The Minister implied that compensation would be considered, and I hope that an amendment will be tabled in another place, although it may not be entirely acceptable to us.
Fourthly, Mr. Aitkenhead suggested that,
In the event of the death of the tenant, the interests of the surviving spouse
should be protected. The Minister has said that the existing legislation provides some protection. Unfortunately, however, licensed tenants do not accept that the protection is there. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) spoke of the fundamental need for the Bill to provide for it. People should not have to refer back to the Hansard report of a debate on 26 February to find out what the Minister said.
In Committee, it was argued that a certain amount of good will was necessary if tenants were to build up a business for the breweries. I hope that the Minister will show some good will himself, and will table amendments in the other place to deal with some of the useful suggestions that have been made today and in Committee.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I apologise for speaking at such a late stage. As I have a considerable interest in the licensed trade, I came into the Chamber to hear what was being said, and found myself provoked to make a short speech.
I begin by declaring an interest as a licensed trade tenant. I am fortunate enough to have a lease rather than a short-term tenancy. Therefore, I am in a slightly different category from most of the licensees who are members of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, which I advised for some years. The association is now advised admirably by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). He acts as adviser to the association rather than as its spokesman. We have to bear in mind Burke's definition. The hon. Gentleman does not speak on the association's behalf in this place, but gives it advice and then makes his own judgment about which line to take.
The debate on the licensed trade and its tenancy arrangements are fundamental to the trade. A licensee is a vulnerable tenant. Should he, for any reason, lose his tenancy, he loses his business and his home. He dispenses alcohol to the public and, therefore, has to exercise with great care a considerable degree of responsibility. There has been discussion for many years about whether licensees should be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or whether statutory backing ought to be given to the code of practice that was drawn up by the Brewers Society. Paragraph 9 of the code of practice would provide them with some security. I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to go down the former track.
A number of hon. Members have referred to compensation for goodwill, a matter which causes me concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) answered that question adequately. If, for reasons beyond his control, a licensee is forced to relinquish his tenancy, he must be recompensed for the important element of goodwill. It has been suggested that the Minister will think again about the matter and that when the Bill is considered in another place their Lordships may also consider that the Bill needs to be amended.
I draw the attention of the House to earlier precedents. The other place has been kind to the licensed trade. Hon. Members will recall that when the Licensing Act 1988 was considered in the other place, amendments were tabled on opening hours on Sundays. They were carried, not just because of the force of the arguments in favour of those opening hours but because the Minister was asleep when the House divided. I shall not mention him by name, but he will be known to hon. Members.
I hope that the sense that has been shown by the other place regarding the licensed trade and the precedents that have been set by earlier legislation will be repeated. Compensation is important to the trade. I hope that that question will be addressed before this welcome measure reaches the statute book.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) referred to four points that had been raised by the National Licensed Victuallers Association. They have also been raised by local licensed victualler associations. I have been contacted

both by the NLVA and the Chesterfield and district body. I have also met the Clay Cross licensed victuallers, who made the same points.
The LVAs believe that contracting-out should not be a condition of granting a new tenancy; that publicans should have the first option to purchase from the brewery; that brewery companies should not take back houses for management without taking into account the goodwill of the business; and that a spouse's rights should be protected. Tenants are in a vulnerable position because of the nature of the business. I intend to refer to additional problems that tenants face.
The enterprise culture has resulted in changes to the licensed trade and the control of public houses. There have been dramatic changes to the terms on which licensees are granted tenancies. Pressure has also been exerted on those who already have tenancies, even when the tenant is doing quite well and is popular in the community. The services that tenants provide are not entirely commercial. Pubs provide a meeting point where people can congregate. It is a form of working-class culture which draws people together. That cannot readily and easily be quantified in terms of the cash element that seems to dominate all decisions.
The changes to opening hours have led to problems for licensed victuallers. Brewers have told tenants when they should open. However, tenants wanted greater flexibility so that they could control opening hours. The result is that their families and the few people whom they employ are being exploited.
A number of tenants will be affected by the poll tax. As they are obliged to live on the licensed premises, those are said to be their sole or main place of residence. That is part of the contract. However, a number of them may have a second home close by. It is a peculiar second home; most people do not have a second home that is only two or three streets away. Tenants make use of their second home and may want to move to it when they retire. It cannot readily be let. However, the community charge provisions mean that poll tax has to be paid both on a three-bedroomed house—the modest accommodation that some tenants may have—and on the licensed premises. Some tenants need to have a second home because of the impermanent nature of the tenancy. It provides a safeguard for them if things go wrong.

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Is he aware that at least one local authority has reached the decision, very sensibly in my view, that it is appropriate to levy the poll tax only on the public house and to make no levy in respect of the second home when a tenant is obliged, by the terms of his tenancy or licence, to reside in the public house? I hope that other local authorities will take that sensible decision.

Mr. Barnes: That is a valuable suggestion. However, local authorities have to ensure that it does not appear to others that a special group has been exempted. The Government ought to take on board my hon. Friend's point. There is still time for them to write into the Bill a provision that would require all local authorities to follow that course. The Government must ensure that special privileges are not thought to have been granted to one particular group. My hon. Friend's suggestion would allow local authorities to get round that problem.
Many licensed victuallers are faced with problems, just because of the kind of community that they serve. At Clay Cross the growing problem of indebtedness in the local community means that public houses are used more at the weekend and are only sparsely attended in the rest of the week. Care should be taken in developing areas that suffer relative deprivation to retain local provisions. A clean sweep, through a commercial approach, might devastate the viability of existing provisions that might be required as part of a growing community. I hope that the special concerns and difficulties encountered by tenants within such communities will be taken into account in the later stages of the Bill.

Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friends and I have considered carefully whether to vote against the Third Reading. We are particularly disappointed by the Government's failure to recognise the cogency of our amendments on contracting-out. The Minister listened politely to everything that we and many Conservative Members said, but he did not accept any of our amendments. That is sad, because our motive throughout has been to improve a piece of legislation with which we agree in principle.
I still believe that the Bill has several flaws. However, my disappointment is tempered by the awareness that it will now proceed to another place, where, we hope, older and probably wiser heads than the Minister's will see the merit of at least some of our proposals. Therefore, after due consideration, I have decided to ask my hon. Friends not to vote against the Bill, but to await the outcome of that debate.

Mr. Redwood: I was expecting more from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I thought that he might have some new arguments that would shed light on our debate. What a disappointment it was that there was nothing new in his final speech.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) graced the House with a rather more extensive resume of some very old arguments that we heard in Committee and one or two new ones. The first was the idea that there was the right to buy for any employee in a Government-owned business. Unfortunately, there is no such right to buy, and nor will there be an intention to provide one by Act of Parliament. There are circumstances, such as those of the National Freight Corporation, where it makes sense for the vendor to sell to the employees because it was a good package and was a way of extending the Government's general policy of more employee ownership which has been reflected in a number of tax changes and other measures. However, there is no right in law to buy any business premises or business from its owners, and to insert one into the law for one particular category of business tenant and not the rest would be extremely skewed legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his homework a little better on the National Freight Corporation which, as he rightly hinted, was a great success of the Government's policies which Conservative Members welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman then revisited the issue of widows' rights and said that the problem of the protection offered by landlord and tenant legislation was that it did not necessarily mean that the spouse would inherit those rights, as that would require the nomination of the tenant before he dies of who takes over the estate. That is a perfectly good security as there may be circumstances in which, for example, the widow did not wish to take over the responsibilities of running the business and the tenant had decided that it made sense to pass the tenancy to the son who would make sensible provision for his mother while taking over the obligations of the tenancy.
Nor would the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that reduces the protection on offer to the widow cover other relationships within the family—for example, if the publican had a stable relationship with a lady but had not got around to marrying her. He might want to nominate her, and that would not be possible under the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
The legislation presents more appropriate arrangements which allow the tenant to nominate before his death who will inherit that part of his estate. We are creating an important property right which he will pass on to the person of his choice. I cannot accept that it is worthwhile having less protection built into the Bill because of that bogus point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If there is no clear succession, no disputed will, no clear will or no will, is there any way in which an existing spouse, who is the obvious successor and wants to continue running the business, will be protected or will things remain as uncertain for her under those circumstances?

Mr. Redwood: I use this opportunity to urge all people who will be passing on that property right to note that they should make sensible arrangements to protect the interests of their spouse. The hon. Gentleman is right that if there is confusion over the estate things will be more difficult. It is not asking very much to say that people should make decent provision in good time for their wives or for other members of their family whom they wish to inherit that right, and it would be common prudence to do so.
I made my position on compensation clear in my response to an earlier debate.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North spoke about Scotland. He ignored the fact that Scotland has a different brewing and tenancy market from that south of the border. In Scotland, on the latest figures I have available, only 18 per cent. of pubs are brewer-owned, compared with 69 per cent. in England. There is such a big difference because there is a much bigger free trade in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman also recognises that the legislation takes the form of an amendment to an existing piece of legislation to drop an exemption that we consider is no longer right or appropriate. There would be no means by which we could effect the same for Scotland as that would require entirely different legislation that would have to consider the balance of business tenancies across the Scottish economy, because Scotland does not have legislation equivalent to that for England and Wales. There is a different settlement for Scottish regions and that would require looking at afresh. It would be a major task to walk over that ground affecting all business tenancies.
We have had a reprise of the previous debate about the nature of contracting-out. I can only repeat the assurances and clarification that I gave then about the procedures that will he followed and the reasons why it was thought to be a good thing when it was introduced in 1969 by a Labour Administration and why we feel that it remains true today for business tenancies in general and for licensed tenancies in particular.
I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) agrees that the Bill represents a step in the right direction for tenants' rights. I also agree with him that, contrary to the suggestion of Opposition Members, there has been no conspiracy. The balance of rights for tenants has not been reached because the brewers have dictated the terms to the Government. It is the result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry and the Government's view that there needs to be improved protection for tenants and that this was the most straightforward and simple way of bringing forward measures to provide protection as quickly as possible. I am grateful that the Committee did not unduly detain the Bill, because it was an essential part of the package that we get the legislation through in good time so that protection can begin to bite as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The Government have responded to the lobby of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). My hon. Friends, the National Licensed Victuallers Association and I quite agree that tenants need protection quickly and that is why it is going ahead on time.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton—I mean my hon. and learned Friend; how could I be so churlish after what he said about me—asked about goodwill. I can only repeat what I said earlier about the nature of goodwill and the monitoring that the Government and the Office of Fair Trading will undertake in connection with the general legislation for all business tenancies, and the detailed package of proposals affecting the brewing industry, which was regarded as a balanced package extending rights and competition in the industry in the way specified.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) welcomed the good news on widows. I wish that Labour Members would understand that our

proposal deals with the problem better than amendment No. 3 would have. I hope that I have clarified for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey how tenancies will be subject to protection over a phased time period, for which the starting date must be July 1989 because that was when the policy was announced. The terminal date has been judged to be July 1992 because we do not wish the legislation to be retrospective. There must be a cut-off point by which all the tenancies are covered, and July 1992 was our balanced judgment of how to overcome the twin pulls of not wishing to disrupt agreements retrospectively but wishing to have all the protection in place for all tenancies by the summer of 1992, by when the other measures will have come into full effect. We tried to phase the MMC conclusions to ensure advancing tenancy protection at the same time as a growing relaxation of the ties, which have caused other changes.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked about the turnover of brewery tenancies, which I clarified in an intervention. I repeat that we are interested in monitoring the success of the policy in the ways that I have described.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about compensation, which I covered in a previous statement. I hope that my noble Friend the Minister will not be asleep when these measures are going through the other place. I have been attentive: to the debate because these are serious matters which require the full-time attention of the Minister on duty.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) dealt with issues far removed from the Bill, with his interest in the community charge and the redevelopment of bad areas. I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's general remarks on the four points made by the NLVA before he arrived.
The Bill makes a welcome improvement to tenants' rights. That improvement was sought by all hon. Members, and I strongly recommend that they give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Industrial Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Mr. Nicholls: The debate takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982. For the engineering board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1·5 per cent. Similarly, the construction board proposals, covering labour-only subcontractors, establish a levy rate of 2 per cent.
Hon. Members will not need reminding that both those sectors are vital to the country's economy. The engineering industry employs nearly 2 million people in 21,600 firms. Its activities are wide ranging, including mechanical engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, vehicle and aircraft manufacture and engineering construction.
The construction industry is almost as large and employs about 1·8 million people, covering activities such as building, civil engineering, electrical contracting, heating and ventilating and plumbing.
The engineering levy proposals are in two parts. The first applies to engineering manufacture, which comprises the majority of the industry, and the second applies to the engineering construction industry, which employs approximately 40,000 workers. I will briefly outline the proposals in both sectors.
For engineering manufacturing establishments, the board proposes a total levy of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll, 0·07 per cent. of which will be non-exemptible. Those rates are the same as last year. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible. Employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for that and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employing 40 workers or fewer will be excluded totally from paying levy. Almost 70 per cent. of firms will therefore be excluded from levy because of their size.
In the engineering construction sector, for off-site employees establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from the levy. That again would mean that almost 70 per cent. of establishments would not pay levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of the levy will be 0·15 per cent. Those rates are also the same as those approved last year.
For site employees, the levy has been increased by 0·38 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of payroll in response to growing skill shortages in this part of the sector. No levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll, which will exclude about 14 per cent. of establishments.
The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0·2 per cent. in the on-site sector means that under the Industrial Training Act the board must demonstrate that there is consensus in the industry for the proposals.
Employer organisations representing 60 per cent. of leviable establishments and about 86 per cent. of the work force have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions of the Act.
The engineering industry training board anticipates that the levy proposals I have described will raise some £22 million. It will apply to those firms what fall within the scope of the board between the date the order comes into force and 31 August 1990.
The construction levy proposals are in the same format and at the same rates as those approved by the House last year.
The board estimates that the levy will raise £66·4 million and it is proposed in three parts. First, there will be a per capita levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. The rates will vary according to the type of person being trained and will reflect the training costs for each occupation. The rates are subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of payroll.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour-only subcontractors. This rate has not changed since 1981 and reflects the board's judgment that subcontractors undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers.
Companies covered by those two parts of the levy with payrolls of £15,000 or less are excluded from the payment of levy. Approximately 29 per cent. of firms are excluded by this provision.
The third part is the levy for the brick manufacturing industry. The board proposed a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll, with firms having a payroll of £100,000 or less being excluded.
As with engineering, the construction board is required to demonstrate that there is consensus within the industry for the proposals because the levy exceeds 0·2 per cent. of payroll without an exemption scheme. Support has been gained from employers' organisations representing 60 per cent. of employers liable to pay the levy and from 82 per cent. of employers who pay more than half of the total levy.
Turning to the future, in line with recommendations in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", the EITB has put forward proposals for an independent training organisation representing engineering manufacture and for the retention of statutory arrangements for engineering construction. These proposals were approved in November 1989.
Currently the board is working on the development of a plan and timetable for the management of this transition and it is anticipated that an independent engineering training authority, covering engineering manufacturing, will be fully operational by July 1991.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend assure the House that not only is great care being taken to ensure that the plans for training meet the requirements of the national training qualifications council but that they will be recognised in Europe?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Underpinning the arrangements will be the


proposition, on which I believe there is a fair amount of consensus, that it is up to employers to train in their sectors because they feel the need of skilled people and because they know how to meet those shortages. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the need to ensure that the standards and qualifications are recognised in Europe.
Our plan means that the levy proposed, for collection in 1990–91, will be the last to be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector.
For engineering construction, it is anticipated that the levy and grant arrangements will secure an adequate supply of skilled workers by rewarding those employers who train. It is expected that the exemption arrangements for this sector's off-site establishments will be replaced by a voluntary code of practice.
In the construction industry, the Government accept that, because of the particular employment patterns—a highly mobile work force and heavy reliance on labour-only subcontracting—statutory arrangements will need to continue, with a thorough review in 1992. In the meantime, a number of sectors in the construction industry training board—principally, electrical contracting, plumbing, heating and ventilating—are developing independent arrangements.
The proposals have received unanimous approval from the respective boards and will assist in sustaining their worthwhile activities within their industries. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Henry McLeish: The Minister's speech had a familiar ring, but I am grateful for the fact that he opened up the debate at the end of his speech by talking about the Government's new ideas for voluntarism within the training boards structure in the years ahead.
The Opposition support the orders. We wish to congratulate the construction industry training board and the engineering industry training board on their work and their commitment to tackle the emerging skills crisis. Although we applaud their past work, the future is ominous. The Government have said that they will let the two boards continue for three years, but the Opposition have no doubt that, after this thorough-going review, they will again be put on a voluntary basis. We believe from our perspective of the skills crisis that that would not be a good idea for the industries or the nation.
Our anxiety is heightened by the fact that, despite the Government's rhetoric over the past decade, they have been involved in a systematic assault on the training infrastructure. The Manpower Services Commission was stripped of its responsibilities and was changed into the Training Commission, which has been emasculated over the past few months. The Skills Training Agency is about to be privatised, again with no real regard for the nation's training needs but again doing much to satisfy the Government's aim to move towards the market model. We have also seen the final attempt to dismantle the training boards structure. In 1981, in a document entitled "Framework for the Future", the Government said that 16 of the 23 training boards should go out of existence. This was followed by a recent decision to axe another five and the decision that two should continue on a statutory basis, with a review promised at the end of three years.
The Government's record does not reinforce our confidence that training is safe in their hands. They have not tackled the skills crisis and, even more alarming, they have assaulted what could have been the basis of a training structure in the 1990s.
I should like to dwell on the Government's attempt to have voluntarism or the market model. Many people regard voluntarism as a polite description of the crude market mechanism which is being introduced into the delivery of training. On 8 November 1989, the former Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—said:
The amendments, which we moved in another place, are designed to enable us to change statutory industrial training boards to voluntary employer-led bodies or to employer-led boards. The change is part of the changes to the existing framework necessary to meet the challenges of the next decade.
In an extraordinary paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In future, training must help business succeed, become the responsibility of employers, provide standards that are set by industry, allow adults and young people to receive qualifications".
Is that not what the training boards and every training company have been doing for the past decade? Is it not nonsense to suggest that they must now contribute to business success? What has training been about? Is not training about success, profitability, competitiveness and trying to give us an edge, whether in a world market or a European market? The right hon. Gentleman was trying to establish the simple point that, regardless of the crisis of the skills shortage in this country or in the world market, the Government would go down a market road on training. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
That approach is far preferable to one of regulation and compulsion."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c.1121–22.]
I have a simple question for the Government: what evidence sustains the Government through onslaught after onslaught by the Opposition, industrialists and our European competitors and suggests that, by changing the statutory nature of these boards to one of voluntarism, all our training problems will disappear? Is the evidence based in this country? If so, I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response. Is it based on the experience in Europe? It cannot be, because people there are walking in a different direction from the Government.
We see no sense in leaving industrial training entirely to the market. Of course, employers must play an active leading role, but they have not walked away from their responsibilities, as the Government are doing. Is it much more to do with what emanates from No. 10 Downing street and the fact that everything must pay homage to the market model? The Government are in danger of isolating themselves from mainstream opinion on training, but, more important, they are in danger of turning their back on the emerging skills crisis, which has enormous implications for the challenges of 1992 and for our ability to compete in a world in which other countries invest in development and innovation, linked to training in a way about which either the Government have no conception or, if they have, it is not reflected in their actions.
As if that were not bad enough, on 9 November, in a press notice issued by the Department of Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield posed the real threat to the two remaining boards. He said:


In two sectors I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue for the time being, but this does not shape our belief that a voluntary approach offers a better long-term solution to meeting industries' own training needs.
At the end of that paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am minded to think that they, too, should be moved to an entirely voluntary basis.
That is what he said, after accepting the three-year continuation of the boards' lives and the review which is to take place.
The Government have made up their mind. The two boards are living on borrowed time. We may be one, two or three years from having the 23 training boards completely removed from the training scene, to be replaced by what the Government call voluntarism. In 1987, the Varlaam report, prepared by the Institute of Manpower Studies, stated that the non-statutory training organisations that the Government had set up were not working. No one was surprised. In an editorial on 4 March 1988, the Financial Times stated:
One immediate area where reform is needed is the sectoral Non-Statutory Training Organisations (NSTOs), which were established by employers after the abolition of most statutory Industrial Training Boards … After six years, the first comprehensive survey of the 102 NSTOs found that half, covering about 2·5 million employees, were 'not effective'.
The main conclusion to emerge from the report was that those organisations needed more Government support. Is that not a curious paradox? Those bodies were set up in the voluntary sector supposedly to undertake the work of the statutory boards, but after a few years in operation the main conclusion of the study was that they needed more Government help.

Mr. Rowe: Is it not a promising feature of the training scene that in a number of companies people are putting in their own time and effort to acquire qualifications that will enable them to earn substantially higher wages? But is it not also the case that in many industries the gap between those who have acquired higher qualifications and those who have not is much too small and that the reason for that is that the trade unions have traditionally pressed for a flattening of the salaries and wages structure? Would it not be a good idea to change that?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. I accept that one of the key issues that we face in Britain is not only to increase the volume of skills in every sector but to improve the quality.
My main criticism of the Government is that, although they claim to seek voluntarism, there is nothing in legislation to encourage the individual. To engage the nation in tackling the skills crisis, we need not only the participation of employers but firm leadership from the Government. That combination is replicated in every country in Europe, in the far east and by two of our major competitors—Japan and America. That is the central point that I am trying to stress.
What are our other main criticisms of the Government? First, they seem to oppose any statutory provision. After all, that goes against the grain of their political prejudice, which is well documented.
Secondly, they are against the concept of a levy because they are mindful of what they regard as bureaucracy and because they think that employers should be left to do

what they wish, regardless of whether the effect on economic performance is good or bad. That cannot be right.
Thirdly, the Government have spent the past 10 years seeking confrontation over the delivery of training. Why is it that, even on the newly constituted boards in the engineering and construction industries, we must again have a majority of employers? I do not particularly mind a majority of employers, but why have the Government gone out of their way to isolate and marginalise the providers of training, the educationists and the trade unionists? In Europe, the social partnership concept brings together employers and trade unions in a constructive relationship. Yet this Government do not seek partnership even though it is the model used by all our European competitors. Instead, they seek to build in confrontation, which is a luxury that we cannot afford. We cannot measure up to the challenges that we face without partnership, consensus and a degree of unanimity concerning our national objectives.
Let me deal specifically with engineering. Nowhere is our skills crisis more evident than in engineering. We read that, in the last quarter of 1989, we had a 20 per cent. cut in manufacturing investment, a £20 billion trade deficit, 20 per cent. skills shortages being reported repeatedly by the CBI and an interest rate of 15 per cent. We read that 52 per cent. of employees receive no training and 20 per cent. of employers provide no training. What does the Government's voluntarism do to tackle the problems in the engineering sector? If there is a way out of the economic crisis that Britain faces in the 1990s, it is surely to invest in manufacturing and provide it with the best skill training base that we can offer through a partnership between employers and employees. But it seems that the Government simply do not care.
What about small businesses? In a debate a few weeks ago we pointed to the fact that nearly 6 million people are either self-employed or in small businesses. In the newly constituted boards, there is to be a larger exemption and that gives rise to concern about small businesses. Small businesses need assistance because they make an enormous contribution to growth and employment, but some of them cannot afford the finance—especially given the other national problems that I have outlined—to invest in training. What are the Government doing to encourage small businesses and to involve them in a partnership to ensure that their product development, production processes and productivity improve?
The Opposition support the orders, but we believe that their success will be governed by the circumstances in which they are implemented over the next two to three years. The Government have made great play of the improvements in productivity that have taken place in the past decade. It does not take an economic wizard to realise that, if one sheds 2 million to 3 million employees from manufacturing industry, productivity will increase and unit costs are likely to fall. But improvements in unit costs and productivity are starting to level off and the reason is simple: we have shed manpower without investing in the two sectors in which our competitors do well—technology and capital equipment and training. We simply cannot continue to marginalise those who wish to contribute to training. We must now take seriously the fact that we have a major skills crisis. We need partnership, and we cannot have the Government walking away from the problem and calling their neglect a strategy.

Mr. Richard Holt: This is one of those rare occasions on which it is possible to support the Government but also to speak critically, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has shown. It also affords us the opportunity to examine not merely the question of training but the creation of opportunities for young people to earn a living later in life.
I am delighted that so much of this debate has been about Europe. I have discovered that what happens in Europe is very different from what happens in Britain. In Europe, young people can still begin apprenticeships at 13, 14 and 15, which is not possible in our somewhat hidebound education system. It is time the Government realised that if we are to meet the skill shortages of the future and get young people to enter craft industries we must look again at the division that we have created between education and training. That division does not arise on the continent, and if we are to be on all fours with our competitors on the continent we must examine why they succeed and we fail. One of the reasons is that they do not entertain the nonsensical idea that one must have comprehensive education until 16 and only then begin a craft apprenticeship.
The Europeans stream youngsters at a much earlier age. They give them the educational classification most suited to their needs, and that includes apprenticeship training. In France, youngsters can begin at 13 or 14. We do not regard the French as educational Philistines—on the contrary, we regard them as rather forward-thinking. Youngsters can do a two-year pre-vocational training from 13 to 15 and can then train for their craft at a training centre for apprentices from 15 to 18 years of age. We should be examining that way forward rather than continuing with our rather nonsensical training boards.
I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member to have served on one of the boards. I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member to have been responsible for apprentice training. I do not suppose that I am the only hon. Member who has examined youngsters in craft skills. I also spent a great deal of my time in local government dealing with education at all levels. I could see the divide then, and it has been there for a long time—at least for the 28 years to which I refer.
As chairman of an apprentice training scheme, it was my responsibility to sign indentures at the beginning and at the end of training courses. The contribution made by trade unions in that context was nil and employers were not very clever either. The result was that any youngster who lived long enough had his certificate signed; it had nothing to do with whether he had passed an examination or created a piece of work. On the continent one still has to prove that the qualifications have been attained and that one can do the work. I do not believe that the training boards represent the best method of ensuring that—now or in the future. Nor can we leave training entirely to those in industry who are responsible for it today.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central. In the past decade training has become a growth industry. My professional body, the Institute of Personnel Management, established its own institute of training in the past two or three years. Now there are many trainers doing much training, but those worthy people often do not get their hands on the raw material that they have to train until it is too late.
We should have a debate on the relationship between education and training. An education Minister should be present when we debate training and vice versa. We should examine what is happening in Europe, Japan and America. We should not be hidebound and say that we cannot reduce the school leaving age. No one is asking us to reduce it overall. Nor is that how it works on the continent. Youngsters in Italy, France, Germany and Holland are under strict controls when they begin their craft training and apprenticeships. They train in all sorts of skills—agriculture, catering and tourism as well as the furniture trade with which I was concerned. From 1992 our furniture trade will be trying to compete with its European competitors although it has a skills training shortage while they have not.
It is all very well to pass these orders and to collect the levy. I used to do that. We spent a great deal of time collecting money and paying it out. We were concerned not so much with training as with the administration of the scheme. That is why I was glad to see the back of the training boards, and I would vote for their abolition again.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what happens on the continent. Employers are excused from national insurance contributions for apprentices. They are not levied or paid, so employers are encouraged to take on apprentices. There is no time in this short debate to develop the argument fully, but I hope that I have sown enough seeds in my hon. Friend's mind for him to take my suggestion away and to come back to the House with a debate on education and training in the light of 1992 and what is happening in the rest of Europe.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The questions arising from the debate will not lead any of us to oppose the orders. Nevertheless, I did not hear the Minister explain how the regulations will be governed in the three-year period that the Secretary of State announced before the completion of the review. One order expires in March and the other later this year. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister anticipates, as I do, further orders thereafter.
According to the Government's figures, in the past three years two thirds of all employees received no training. I agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that, unless we give far more serious consideration to our training needs and act on the conclusions which show how inadequate training is, we shall not have an economy adequate for the next century, let alone 1992.
The construction industry training board and the engineering industry training board were singled out for continuation. The Government regard them as having a particular contribution to make to their respective industries, as evidenced by the employers who told them so. The construction industry training board ensured good training in safety practices. The Minister will be aware that safety matters give rise to widespread anxiety. We must ensure that there is adequate training to the best and highest standards of safety practice, so that we continue to reduce the number of fatalities. Sadly, for many years we have had too many of them.
Part of the general plan outlined by the former Secretary of State in his statement in November included increasing remission for small firms from contributing to


the levy. Given the growth in the number of people working for small firms, we should not exempt small firms per se from the levy. Such an exemption, together with the exemption from the obligation to apply as high training standards as large firms, would exclude many people from the possibility of training.
The Government have identified the other part of the agenda, not the hidden or voluntary part—that we should give incentives to those who provide the best training. My colleagues and I support the idea of remitting tax for good training. If people produce evidence to show that they have trained well and we provide a tax incentive, that would encompass good training practice across all sectors, not just engineering and construction, and not just large firms. That would encourage people to train.
After the review I hope that the Government will resolve to continue to ensure that industries such as engineering and construction have the best possible training structures in place. Nothing should be done to undermine the good practice, good standards and good achievements of those boards in the past. We need to preserve the highest standards. It would be a great sadness if, because of the dogmatic argument about getting rid of anything that is on a statutory basis, we were to get rid of two bodies that had proved their worth. I hope that the two boards realise that there is general support for them in Parliament and we hope that they will do an ever-improving job, whatever the size of firm.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Time is very short, so I shall be brief.
I understand that the construction industry training board is to be reprieved and I am sure that we are all thankful for that. The Minister announced that the engineering industry training board is to be axed. I fear that that is likely to prove to be a mistake. We will rely on employer voluntarism when it was due to the failure of such a policy that the industrial training boards were set up.
There is to be a successor organisation to the engineering industry training board. Are all the activities of the board to be transferred? If not, what will happen to

the activities not transferred? What will happen to the board's assets? Are they all to be transferred? If not, what is to happen to them? Who appointed the first governing council of the successor body, or who made the recommendations to the Minister? Why was not even one educationist put on the governing council of the new body? Can the Minister explain the relationship with the training and enterprise councils? Are the non-statutory industry training organisations to set the standards that the TECs will implement?
I see the Minister looking at the clock. I shall take only 60 seconds more. I, too, read the Varlaam report. It states that many voluntary bodies are not effective and that if the Government wish the standard setting issue to be in the forefront of non-statutory training organisations' activities, a great deal more additional support will be necessary. Will that necessary support be forthcoming?

Mr. Nicholls: Detailed points have been made in this short but useful debate and, clearly, I shall have to write to hon. Members to do justice to their speeches.
I assure the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that I never doubted his commitment to training. Some of his implications about his party's support for training, however, rang hollow. He asks for proof that when the industrial training boards move into the voluntary sector they will be a success. If he considers the present industrial training board system, he must conclude that after 25 years they cannot be said to have been an overwhelming success. It is only right after 25 years that the Government should look at the situation and see how it can be improved. Bearing in mind his personal commitment, it is a bit rich to hear from him that a party which initially took a sceptical view of youth training and vigorously opposed employment training at its outset is in favour of training. However, we may be able to deal with that another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

7 pm

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Roger King: This Bill has been debated for some time and it was the subject of a carry-over motion at the end of the last Session of Parliament. The Committee discussed and debated it at great length. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee—led by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)—for their diligent work. I attended the Committee on several occasions and enjoyed its work. It investigated at great length the criticisms and petitions presented by members of the public and by organisations with issues to raise with the promoters of the Bill.
The Bill has now been amended, so there is little more for me to say other than that the promoters would like progress to be made because they fervently believe that it is in the best interests of the people of Birmingham. It has received the overwhelming support of the elected representatives of Birmingham and of the majority of hon. Members. It is part of Birmingham's resuscitation and will provide it with a future that will acknowledge its growing importance as an industrial, commercial, financial and tourist centre of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) cannot be present tonight. This will be the first occasion on which he has not participated in these debates. He is in hospital, and I know that all hon. Members will join me in sincerely wishing him every good health. We hope that everything is all right and that he will be back with us soon. He is not responsible for choosing the dates for the consideration of Bills, but I know that he is with us in spirit. I can almost hear him making interjections as we make our points.
This is the first example of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) supporting Birmingham city council. Usually he misses no opportunity to denigrate and abuse it. He has ably presented the Bill to the House, and even though it is his first example of supporting the council, it so happens that on this occasion I do not agree with him.
I do not support the Bill. This is our first opportunity seriously to examine it. Because of our procedures, every Birmingham hon. Member has been prevented from becoming involved in and studying the details of the operation of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985, and the effect that the Bill will have on it. There have been two brief debates—two and a half hours on Second Reading last April, which was a general debate, and a similar debate on the carry-over motion. The detail of the Bill was scrutinised by four hon. Members who, by the rules of the House, could have nothing to do with Birmingham. That point is not always appreciated by our constituents. Birmingham Members, who allegedly know more about Birmingham—and that is true—than any other hon.

Member, have not yet been able to examine the detail of the Bill. It is that part of the procedure that we begin this evening.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I am perplexed by what the hon. Gentleman has said about my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who properly supports a Bill that the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council thinks is in Birmingham's best interest. The hon. Gentleman criticises my hon. Friend because he is supporting one of the few Bills that the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council supports. My hon. Friend, like myself—and I have served for 23 years on the city council—and like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and others of my hon. Friends support what is good for Birmingham. Why should my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield be praised because he has ably presented the Bill but denigrated because he supports something that even the Labour party thinks is for the good of Birmingham? We are all rather perplexed about where we stand. Do we have to criticise the council because it is Labour controlled?

Mr. Rooker: Far from it. The hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is not a party political matter.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It has become one.

Mr. Rooker: It has not become a party political matter. The hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate that it was carried by a majority on the city council on a free vote. It may or may not be carried in this House on a free vote. There is no party Whip to decide on the merits or demerits of any part of the Bill. My hon. Friends take differing views—as do Conservative Members—on the merits or demerits of the Bill. I do not wish to make this into a party political matter, either in the House or on the city council. Perhaps I should not have said what I did about the hon. Member for Northfield, who is the promoters' spokesperson—in the same way that he was the poll tax Minister's bagman in Committee a couple of years ago. He has presented the Bill and carried it through its stages, but, like me, he has not been able to participate in the detailed examination of it because he is a Birmingham Member.
I wish to discuss the Bill that has come from Committee. I shall make only general remarks as I can make detailed remarks when we discuss the amendments.
I had a major surprise when I read the current, amended Bill and compared it with the Bill presented on Second Reading. It is not the same Bill. After being scrutinised by the Committee, and having listened to all the evidence, I can say that there is nothing in the Bill that will toughen up and make work the supposed financial safeguards of the 1985 Act. That is a major omission by the Committee, which was set up to examine the Bill. The Committee may not have seen it as its remit—I see it as mine, as do my hon. Friends—to examine the finances of the road race.
I oppose the Bill because it does nothing about finances, and so effectively it opens up a bottomless financial pit for poll tax payers in Birmingham. That is very important. Finances are the key reason that the House exists with the powers that it does as control of finances can mean the control of policy.

Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care.


I was concerned to hear him say that the Bill represents a bottomless pit for our ratepayers on top of the problems with the community charge. Does he feel that the city council will not be able to be careful about expenditure on the road race? What makes him so worried in this regard?

Mr. Rooker: I am worried because of the evidence provided by the first three years' accounts—we do not have the accounts for the fourth year. I do not believe that the council will take care and the evidence is in the accounts, as published. Those accounts, in tandem with the debates in the House in 1985, are the reason for my concern.
The Bill refers to the possibility of holding a grand prix. Birmingham, however, runs not a grand prix road race, but a super prix. No one else runs such a race and the idea was to hold a motor race around the streets which was not a grand prix, but which involved fairly fast cars that made a lot of noise and gave excitement. A grand prix, however, is a specific race designated internationally.
Page 39 of the latest annual report and accounts of the city council for 1988–89, with which we are all provided, refers to the Bill by saying that it amends
the council's power relating to on-street motor racing providing for additional days which could pave the way for a Formula 1 Grand Prix to be held in Birmingham.
There are several references in the Bill to a potential grand prix. The hon. Member for Northfield, either on Second Reading or in the debate on the carry-over motion, referred to a grand prix. If the city were to obtain or try for a grand prix, as mentioned in the annual report, there is no doubt that we would be talking about millions of pounds. That is what it has cost other cities around the world to host an international grand prix. To stage the British international grand prix in Birmingham could cost £5 million or more.
No one argues that Birmingham would host such a grand prix every year. That would not be acceptable to Goodwood, Brands Hatch or Silverstone which host the grand prix on alternate years. No doubt there would be a bit of a row about those circuits holding the grand prix only once every four years instead of every three years. The cost to Birmingham could run into millions, but there is nothing in the Bill to impose financial controls on the city council, bearing in mind that the Birmingham City Council Act 1985 does not work financially. There is nothing to stop the council from promoting, touting, operating and funding a grand prix.

Mr. Roger King: Such a grand prix is an important matter and, in essence, we want four days of circuit closure to stage such a race. Just about every country would like to host a formula 1 grand prix and many eastern European countries, including Russia, have expressed an interest. I would not quibble with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of a cost of £5 million. I believe that it may well cost more to stage a full formula 1 grand prix, but the benefits from greater sponsorship would be considerable.
I cannot envisage such an opportunity presenting itself to the city council for 10 years, but should that happen it would be subject to much debate within the council chamber. It would be for the local councillors to decide whether they wanted to commit themselves to such an event. The Bill gives them the opportunity to stage such a debate should the opportunity arise. I wholeheartedly

endorse the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman as I would not wish to be part and parcel of anything that gave anyone a blank cheque. I trust our local councillors, however, to make the decision.

Mr. Rooker: I did not want to go over the top in my estimate of the cost, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that it could come to more than £5 million, I accept that. The hon. Gentleman must recognise, however, that the Bill is a blank cheque. The only financial control on offer is that contained in section 14 of the 1985 Act, but we know that that is a dead duck. There is no financial control that could be imposed on the council.
If Birmingham were to hold a grand prix the hon. Member for Northfield must accept that the present circuit would be unsuitable. There would not only have to be a great deal of debate at Birmingham city council, but another Bill would have to be introduced in the House to require another circuit to be built. What a waste of parliamentary time. There is no power in the Bill to enable the city council to change the circuit. Such a change would require primary legislation.

Mr. King: I must put the hon. Gentleman right as the Bill includes provision for alterations to the circuit to extend dramatically the pit facilities. In effect, the Bristol road south route, the southern exit of the city, would become the area in which the cars would be serviced and maintained during the race. Our circuit is superior to that of Monaco, Detroit or Los Angeles. Were we to be offered a grand prix, I do not expect that we would have to build a completely new circuit.

Mr. Rooker: We would not be offered a grand prix; we would purchase it. Notwithstanding the changes to the pit and to the circuit as contained in the Bill, it would still be unsuitable for a grand prix. There are no powers in the Bill for the council to make another circuit without primary legislation. That important point must be taken on board.

Ms. Clare Short: It would be truly unbearable for the people of Ladywood if the road race became a grand prix. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for what he said, because, until now, two different stories have been told. In private we have been told that we might get a grand prix, whereas my constituents have been told that there is no chance of that. My constituents would be unable to tolerate a grand prix, but the sponsor of the Bill has notified us of his aspirations to have such a race.
I also want to put it on record that, early on in our consideration of the Bill, we were offered a deal by which some financial constraints would be put in the Bill in exchange for our agreement not to oppose it. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an offer represents an irresponsible attitude? Surely there should be a financial constraint in the Bill whatever the position adopted by the Bill's critics.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend touches on the content of some of the new clauses. I do not want to go into those in detail except to say that we were offered a new clause that put workable financial restrictions on the council—it is admitted that those in the 1985 Act do not work—if we dropped all our other objections to the detailed operation of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), given her constituency interests, was not prepared to do that. The strange thing is that the


new clause we were offered did not impose such financial restrictions if a grand prix were held. The new clause that we were offered has now been tabled, word for word, under my name as we want to examine this matter in detail.
Anyone who believes that the Birmingham city centre is all right for a grand prix must take into account that it will not be like the super prix. I shall give three statistics from the 1989 British grand prix. There were 500,000 people over three days, 1,000 helicopter movements, thousands of people camping on a site and 25 acres of hospitality tents. I know that we have tried for hospitality in Birmingham —but 25 acres of hospitality tents?

Mr. Robin Corbett: Even some councillors could not cover that lot.

Mr. Rooker: I suggest that my hon. Friend does not put that on the record.
It is therefore of concern that the promoters have quite deliberately put in the Bill references to a grand prix, but have failed to insert the necessary safeguards, both financial and social, that would be required if a grand prix were achieved.

Mr. Terry Davis: I emphasise once and for all that the new clause offered to my hon. Friend by his hon. Friends was intended to ensure only that the council kept the promise that it made last time with regard to the super prix. It was never intended that there should be any restrictions on the subsidy from poll tax payers to a grand prix.

Mr. Rooker: That is what it was all about and what this debate hinges on when one takes away the detail and the important, but minor, points. It hinges on the fact that it is a bottomless pit—an open cheque, to use the words of the hon. Member for Northfield—for the poll tax payers of Birmingham. Later, I shall compare the effect of the race with other issues.
The Bill was debated on 18 April last year on Second Reading and on the carry-over motion on 13 November. That was the only time in this House in 16 years that I have been shut up by a closure. That was just a quirk. Closures frequently happen and I make no complaint about that. I was on my feet for a few minutes in April at the end of the debate when the hon. Member for Northfield moved the closure. We did not think that the Bill had been debated sufficiently and that it deserved at least two sessions. After all, the equivalent of less than a full parliamentary day would be two three-hour sessions. On 13 November I was on my feet for about five or six minutes when my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath moved the closure. I make no complaint about that. All the procedures were followed to the letter. That is exactly what must happen with the rest of the Bill's passage. It merely means that more time is needed to raise the important issues about which there is widespread concern in the city of Birmingham.
This debate—and this applies to any future debates on the Bill—in no way affects the right or the future of two days motor racing on the streets of Birmingham. That is in the power of the 1985 Act and will not be altered in the sense that it will be done away with by the Bill. It is extended. If the Bill takes another 12 months to reach the statute book, or does not reach the statute book, motor

racing can continue for two days on the streets of Birmingham. We are not seeking to go back on that or to knock out the 1985 Act.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the motor racing will continue without any financial restrictions. The racing will not be affected by our debate today or any future debates we might have.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: One purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is adequate practise for the two days of racing already incorporated in the 1985 Act. It is felt essential from many points of view that for driver acclimatisation and safety there should be at least one day for practise on the circuit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an excellent requirement?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course, on safety grounds I thoroughly agree. That is why the original Act had, in effect, one day for practise—Sunday—and one for racing —Monday. That was the way in which it was intended to be set up. The point that I am making and want to reinforce is that nothing in today's debate or our demanding the debates to which we are entitled to debate the Bill in any way affects Birmingham's right to operate road races for two days a week.

Mr. Terry Davis: Two days a year.

Mr. Rooker: Two days a year.

Mr. Davis: It would like it for two days a week.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) says that it would like it to be two days a week. I meant for two days a year.
If the 1985 Act, particularly section 14, was working, it would mean that after this year—the fifth year—the right to operate the race would be curtailed. It is clear that a loss has been incurred over a five-year period. In no way will this year's race make up the losses of previous years. Therefore, there will be a cumulative loss over five years. The 1985 Act contained the fail-safe, the seeds to stop it if it went wrong financially, but those controls are not operating. This debate and any future debates will not affect Birmingham's right to the race.
It is the wilful disregard of secton 14—the financial safeguard—that has led to several amendments to the Bill being tabled and my initial regret that the Bill, having come from Committee, does not contain the safeguards. In the statement which they sent to all hon. Members for today's debate, the promoters requested that we should not accept any of the amendments. When those amendments are debated, I have no doubt that we shall have answers from the hon. Member from Northfield about why we should not accept any of them.
I want to concentrate on the Bill so far, and to do so I must concentrate on the operation of the 1985 Act because the two run in tandem. To kick off, I can do no better than use the words of Mr. David Torvell of Pershore road contained in a letter that he sent to hon. Members last week. I do not know to which hon. Members it was sent. It clearly states: "Two: Selected Birmingham MPs." I have heard many things about the Bill, for example, meetings to discuss the Bill in Brighton last October, to which I was not invited. Obviously, meetings for selected Members do not include me, or any of my hon. Friends here today.


They may have included my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) my own Member for Parliament, but he has not discussed that with me.
The letter from David Torvell was sent to Birmingham Members last week. It was dated 19 February and touches on the Bill's detail and, more importantly, the way that the Bill has operated in practice. The House should appreciate how the laws it passes operate in practice. I shall be happy to let Conservative Members, if they have not received a copy, have one later. Mr. Torvell raises some points and sets out his position regarding the road race.
He says that the race has been run for four years,
time enough for teething troubles to have been overcome.
That is a fair and moderate statement. He continues:
Over that period the Birmingham City Council has repeatedly proved itself unfit to manage the event. Restrictions imposed by Parliament, and undertakings given by the City Council to the Select Committee, are treated by Council officials with open contempt.
That is what Mr. Torvell said with reference to the Committee that considered the Bill early last year. He goes on to make three points regarding the powers to extend the 1985 Act that are implicit in the Bill. I shall give one example. He talks about the increasing dangers and inconvenience to which residents and travellers are exposed. Writing about last year's race, he states:
Work on the circuit was authorised and advertised to begin not before 7th August".
That was in preparation for the race on 27 and 28 August last year. He continues:
The Roundabout at Pershore Road/Belgrave Road was
obstructed from 19th July to 28th July for reconstruction of
a soft-crash area. Contractors confirmed that the work was explicitly for the Road Race (confirmed by City Engineers Dept). Contractors' vehicles not in use and not needed for work obstructed the carriageway.
Pershore road, as anyone knows, is a main radial route serving much of south Birmingham and north Worcestershire; it is very much a commuter lane into Birmingham——

Mr. Terry Davis: And from Northfield.

Mr. Rooker: Indeed; the constituents of the hon. Member for Northfield must have suffered severe disruption travelling into the city centre.
To return to the letter:
At a meeting on 14 September Mr. A. J. Richardson (City Engineers Dept) agreed that the work had been done for the Road Race. He also agreed that traffic had been obstructed. When asked why he had disregarded the time limits laid down by Parliament he laughed and said, 'I do not need to pay attention to those powers. I can do it whenever I like under my other powers.'".
I shall refer to that point several times in my speech because it is crucial.
Mr. Torvell's second point was as follows:
Following the race held on 27–28 August 1989, the contractors failed (as on all previous occasions) to clear up dangerous and unsightly materials.
He gives a couple of examples—of scaffolding planks left hanging over the edge of the underpass 20ft above fast traffic, of metal posts and fittings and pieces of wood left lying on the highway, and so on. We know what a danger such objects pose to road users and pedestrians.
A new sewer access (known locally as Prince Edward's Latrine) was left uncovered on public open space beside two primary schools.
These are serious allegations——

Mr. Bevan: Even if Mr. Torvell is correct about the clearing up—and I do not necessarily concede that—does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the amendments that we shall consider this evening would reduce the period of cleaning up from 20 to 10 days, thereby ensuring that the hon. Gentleman's point was dealt with?

Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that crucial point later. I promise that this is not one of those times when an hon. Member says that he will deal with a question before he sits down but never answers it.

Ms. Short: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, as are my constituents, that all the restrictions in the existing legislation—on when the council can erect fences and take them down and on clearing up—have been breached, so how can we have confidence that the new restrictions in this Bill will be honoured?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot answer that question, except to say that we have to bear in mind the experience of the past four years.
Mr. Torvell told me that Mr. Richardson was asked on 14 September what action he had taken on these points. He replied:
'If, after 16 December I receive reports that contractors have not cleared up, then I may consider adjusting their payments.
When asked why no checks had been made on the dangers to motorists and pedestrians and why no attempt had been made to supervise the contractors, no answer was forthcoming from the city engineer's department. Mr. Torvell goes on to mention entertainment and hospitality, but I do not want to go into that in detail, save to point out that he mentions that the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Evening Mail consistently censored all references to hospitality in readers' letters. Perhaps my hon. Friends will deal with such points when they speak on the amendments.
My last point relates to the council's 11 undertakings to the Select Committee in respect of future races. The undertakings were read out by the hon. Member for Northfield in our November debate. Mr. Richardson makes the point that the council undertook, in a letter from Mr. Tricklebank of the chief executive's department, to implement the undertakings that could be implemented for the 1989 race. In other words, there was no need to wait for the passage of the Bill to implement the undertakings —they are not consequential upon it. Some of them could have been implemented for the 1989 race——

Mr. Terry Davis: I believe that my hon. Friend may have attributed to Mr. Richardson remarks that were made by Mr. Torvell. Mr. Richardson, in the city engineer's department, is alleged to have taken a nonchalant attitude to breaches of undertakings.
I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to Mr. Torvell's point about costs being misattributed. My hon. Friend knows that Mr. Torvell claims that the road race has damaged school playgrounds and buildings. That damage has been made good by the education department from the education budget, and the money does not appear in the accounts of the road race. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my genuine and general concern about the lack of repairs to school buildings in Birmingham. Some schools in my constituency have leaking roofs and


we are continually told that the money to undertake these essential repairs is not available—yet the education budget is being robbed in the way I have described.

Mr. Rooker: It appears to be easier to get the super prix circuit resurfaced than to get school playgrounds resurfaced. I hope that I did not misquote Mr. Torvell by calling him Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of damage to playgrounds, but is it not true that the education budget in Birmingham was underspent last year and that the money had not been put to use? Is it not therefore a little amoral to bring in that argument?

Mr. Rooker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that if the education budget has been underspent the money can be chucked into the road race budget——

Mr. Bevan: I am not saying that.

Mr. Rooker: No, but that is what happened—or what Mr. Torvell told us what happened.

Dame Jill Knight: If the road race caused damage that was not put right immediately, that is a serious matter that I would want to take up. The question that the hon. Gentleman dragged into the debate, however, perhaps because he thought it might be a good political point, was that the fabric of schools elsewhere in Birmingham needed attention. I suggest that those are two different issues. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was valid: the fabric fund had not been spent as it should have been. The hon. Gentleman, however, has made a point solely to do with the road race, and it is a serious one. I was interested to hear about it because I have not heard it before.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the tone of that intervention. I abhor underspending of budgets as much as I abhor overspending—it upsets the finances. It is just not on to leave schools, some of which do not get painted and some of whose roofs do not get repaired for 20 years, without maintenance. I have made my views on that privately and vocally known to those in a position to do something about the problem. It was not I who raised the issue of school playgrounds; it was Mr. Torvell, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill quoted that part of his letter.
As for the undertakings, Mr. Torvell says:
In the opinion of local residents not one
of the 11 undertakings
was implemented.
That beggars belief. There was a promise of a telephone line for citizens needing information: no line was provided. The normal lines were unmanned. There was a promise that there would be no undue interference with religious worship. Worship at St. Luke's church was disrupted by engine tests within 50 yards beginning two hours early. St. Catherine's was also affected. There was a commitment to the provision of crossing points for people resident within the circuit, to be usable by disabled persons. There was inadequate general provision, and no provision at all for wheelchairs or the elderly. He also makes the point, which I shall come to later, that noise level records are to be made available to the public. Mr. Torvell tells me that no measures were taken and no information was made

available, but that is not right because noise measurements were taken in the 1989 race. I do not know why they have not been made available.
I have in my file another letter from, I think, the chief executive's department to another citizen of Birmingham. It makes clear that noise measurements were taken in 1989 but that there was no intention to make them publicly available. Such availability was one of the 11 specific undertakings given to the Committee and repeated to the House by the hon. Member for Northfield. Mr. Torvell can speak for himself, but I am happy to make his letter available to hon. Members. He is a resident of Elmwood court in Pershore road. I shall not give the number of the house.
I should like to refer to another letter from an aggrieved citizen who lives virtually on the circuit. It was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill who was contacted last week by a resident in Wheeley's road, a Mr. Jim Berrow. He recited many points similar to those made by Mr. Torvell. In a letter dated 19 February he makes a specific complaint about advertising hoardings placed in totally unsuitable venues. He says that they are year-round eyesores, the revenues from which are set against the revenues for this weekend. If the billboards were making income for the city for the rest of the year, that would riot mess up the motor race accounts. Mr. Berrow says that the costs are spiralling and, generally speaking, the books are not being balanced other than by artificial accounting.
In my files for last year I have dozens of such letters. I have chosen those two because they are fresh and came into the hands of hon. Members in the last few days. They contain the mature thoughts of people who live on the circuit. In a postscript to his letter Mr. Torvell says that he was
a strong supporter of the road-race until I saw how the city council mismanage it and wallow in the … perks.
I do not propose to go into the matter of perks because I
do not think that there are many for the road race. I think he was making a point about no financial controls.
There were many representations from businesses. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) smiles. This is an important matter.

Mr. Bevan: I am smiling not because I do not think that the matter is important but because the hon. Gentleman discarded the second of the letter writer's points while totally accepting the first. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was being a little discriminatory in using the letter.

Mr. Rooker: I should be happy at some future date —but certainly not tonight—to discuss the hospitality accounts. I am more than happy to discuss what is available to hon. Members.

Mr. Bevan: Why is one point right and the other one wrong?

Mr. Rooker: I did not say that it was wrong. I said that I would not go into that but simply raised the bald point that was made in the letter.
I shall now deal with the businesses that are affected. There is no doubt that businesses gain, or, to put it more accurately, that some businesses gain. I shall give two brief examples. The first is in a letter that I received last September after last year's race. It was from the manager of the Wharf Beefeater Steak House and Travel Inn in Bridge street. It is a brand new building in the city centre


alongside the canal at Gas Street basin. I have not been inside the building but have seen it from a canal boat with my hon. Friends the Members for Erdington and for Hodge Hill. We were doing our bit to clean up the canals along the back streets of Birmingham. At that time I saw the building and thought, "Ah, that is where the letter came from." The letter is dated 2 September and states:
As a new corner to the City, with an Hotel, Restaurant and Bars in the central area, I looked forward to the prospect of a welcome increase to my business over the Bank Holiday from the Super-Prix. Far from an increase, I rapidly discovered that apart from a few, well established adjacent businesses, my takings actually fell dramatically over the period. On Saturday evening there were licensees coming in looking to see who was doing the trade.
Licensees in Birmingham were on a most peculiar pub crawl, because they were going from licensed premises to licensed premises to see to where the extra trade was going as a result of the super prix. The manager went on to say that there was no way in which the city centre could cope with a super prix.

Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making. For some reason the West Midlands police cone off the whole of the Bradford street area. Anybody who knows Birmingham knows that at weekends that is the best place in the city centre in which to park. One publican there put his tables outside, but because the area was coned off the police said, "Hey you, put the tables back inside." That is not the fault of the city council. Does my hon. Friend realise that West Midlands police dictates the number of officers? The police order about 600 officers and about 10 people a year are arrested for petty offences, such as picking pockets. My hon. Friend mentioned Silverstone, which hold about 500,000 people. Is he aware that just 32 police officers are present at Silverstone? That explains part of the cost.

Mr. Rooker: No one complains that the city council organises the number of police. I back the police on this. After the first or second race—I think that it was the second one which I visited—I wrote to the chief constable and asked him for a full report about the policing and about any problems that had occurred as a result of pubs being open all day. I also asked about pickpockets and so on. I have a letter which gives a clean bill of health and I am quite happy to make it available. I do not remember the date, but I think it is probably 1987. The reason that it is so peaceful is the decision of the police to police it in the way that they do.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is my hon. Friend trying to tell me that there are anything like 600 police officers involved in the Handsworth carnival? I can tell him that there are not.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to go into detail. The letter from the assistant chief constable is dated 16 September 1987, after the 1987 race. My hon. Friend can read it. I back the police as the appropriate body of trained and experienced personnel to decide how a city centre function such as this should be policed.
There are problems for businesses. Unless a business is in the core area, it has a problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington admits in respect of the pub that he mentioned. In our last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood raised the issue of Aston and Taylor, the newspaper distributors. She was under pressure of time

and received much barracking from hon. Members and in the time available justice was not done to the case that Aston and Taylor had made. That business has nothing to do with the super prix, it receives no spin-off, and it is not in that location because of the super prix. It is in purpose-built premises that were constructed about six years ago.
Aston and Taylor is an old company which was established in 1847 or 1848 and has a turnover of several million pounds a year. It is not a bucket shop operation, yet it has been extremely badly treated because of the super prix. There have been discussions about what has happened. I shall raise a couple of points that are relevant to other matters that I have mentioned. The company says that it wanted some changes in the legislation but also raises a bone of contention about the effect of the race. The company says:
If the provisions of the 1985 Act were adhered to the Company would be able to conduct its business without too much difficulty but it is particularly concerned about the closure of roads for the times and periods set out in the Bill. The City Council have closed roads well outside the time limits of the 1985 Act, as early as 6 am and as late as 8 pm, by using other enactments, e.g. Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
That Act is of the same age as the company concerned. In addition, the city has closed roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In other words, there is other legislation that a body like the city council can use, in addition to the powers given to it by this House in respect of the operation of a road race, which can cause massive dislocation to companies. In this case Aston and Taylor makes it quite clear that
The company does not derive any benefit from its proximity to the circuit.
Referring to the Select Committee's recommendations, it says:
Contrary to the Council's evidence, the Company was not approached to give evidence at the Select Committee hearing, nor were they visited for their views to be canvassed.
That is a massive omission on the part of those responsible for canvassing opinion, putting this Bill together and making provision for amendments. It could be seen as a criticism of a Committee of this House. In any case, it is a major criticism by an important company whose business is badly affected. It is an important point because many people feel that there has been bad faith.
My hon. Friends and I have said that the financial restrictions are worthless. Many people might say that that is just a case of Members moaning and looking for a headline. That is not so. However, when people see that they themselves are affected by matters unrelated to the points of substance that we raise they say, "This is not fair. There's bad faith abroad here." That is important. The question of noise levels, which I gave as an example, certainly stands up to the test. A promise that was given to the Select committee, discussed with the residents and repeated to this House by the hon. Member for Northfield, as reported in columns 89 and 90 of the Official Report of 13 November 1989, could have been implemented for the 1989 race, but was not. People say that that is an example of bad faith, but then they say, "Perhaps all these other people making negative points are right. Perhaps it is true that there is a financial loophole, that there are no financial controls, that this could be really bad for the future." If hon. Members want to know why I claim to know that noise measurements were taken last year, I can tell them that I am simply quoting from a letter from the


environmental protection unit of the environmental services department. That letter, dated 14 September 1989, says:
Monitoring was carried out this year purely as a pilot run in anticipation of any future undertaking, and there are no proposals to publish a report at this stage.
The words
in anticipation of any future undertaking
suggest that the undertakings are tied to the implementation of this Bill. But that was not the intention. We are not in a bargaining position like that. These were genuine undertakings offered by the city council to ease the problem for local people, yet local people say, "Bad faith."
Section 4 of the 1985 Act is replaced by clause 6 of this Bill. The section is being taken out and rewritten. As clause 6 is the subject of proposed amendments, I shall not go into detail at this stage, except to make a point that is worth putting on record as it will figure in our proceedings later. The section that is being taken out contains words that, in effect, entitle the council
to provide or arrange for the provision of all such services, facilities and things (including prizes) and do all such other acts as they may think necessary for that purpose.
This has to do with the power to run a road race. Those words are so wide that it is impossible to see why the council persists in requiring an Act of Parliament with some controls on hours and times of day.
That brings me to a question that was put to me earlier by the hon. Member for Yardley. The words that I have just quoted have been thrown back at Birmingham citizens time and again by the city council when people have written in about something they regarded as being wrong. Perhaps the barriers had not been cleared away in time, or they had been erected too soon. "Outside the law," people say. The city council then throws their words back at them and says that, in effect, it can do what it likes. That is what the words in the legislation mean.
In particular, people have questioned the need for work to be carried out weeks, rather than days, in advance. Clause 3 provides the extra time that has been referred to —20 days before and 10 days after. If extra time is what is needed, why do we need words, such as those in clause 6, that give the council power to do anything it wants? I have here a letter to someone who has complained about this time limit. It says:
However, the Act entitles the council, in making arrangements for the motor race, to do all these things. The council have a similar power to carry out such works as they think necessary or convenient for the purpose … It is this power which is being used.
In other words, this Act is littered with extra powers that make the 20-day and 10-day provisions absolutely meaningless. Why are such provisions necessary when such words are being retained? That is my answer to the hon. Member for Yardley. The council appeared to insist on retaining these gateways so that it might do things at its own convenience, whatever the disruption to the citizens of Birmingham, whatever the rules provided for by the Act. That is what looks like bad faith.

Mr. Bevan: I do not want continually to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must point out that the notes that I have say that the dismantling of equipment should be carried out within 10 days, not 20 days. It is not, as the hon. Member said, an extension of the period; it is a reduction of the period and an extension of the hours from 8 am to 8 pm so that the work may be done more

extensively. The trouble that the hon. Member said had been caused by the time taken to remove these obstacles would no longer obtain.

Mr. Rooker: I accept that this is an attempt to meet a problem by changing the hours and the days, but there is no sanction in the event of that not being achieved; and it will not need to be achieved, because the words in the new section 4, which are in clause 6 of this Bill, enable the council to
provide or arrange for the provision of all such services and facilities and things … and do all such other acts"—
all such other acts—
as they may think necessary or convenient for that purpose.
Of course, the purpose is the holding of a road race. So it will be possible to go outside those limits. My argument is that either we should put the limits in and mean them, and apply some legislative sanctions if they are not carried out, or we should leave the limits out and take out these words. Why should we leave a gaping gateway that will enable the council to say, "We have put these new limits in. That will shut the MPs up, and will make us look as though we are doing the job properly"? I think that that is unfair, and the citizens who have had those words thrown back at them think that it is unfair.

Mr. Roger King: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about how he interprets the Act of Parliament, and suppose that, taken at face value, it would be interpreted in that way. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, as the subject of an Act of Parliament. this matter has been considered very carefully by the Select Committee. If the city were found to be in hopeless and total breach of these requirements it would be a very serious thing indeed. I do not think that the city would willingly exceed the powers that this House, I hope, will give it.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, but there is nothing that the individual citizen of Birmingham can do about it. No citizen will take the council to court. The district auditor cannot be brought in. There is no redress for the citizen. If those words remain, that gateway, that massive legislation gap, will allow the city to do anything that it deems convenient or necessary for the purposes of the legislation. It will not need to take seriously the days and hours that are provided for. The city engineer's department made it clear to people who complained that it took the action that it did under the powers not of the 1985 Act but of other legislation. That is unfair, because the individual is given no redress.
As to finances, although I am not a lawyer, I know what I was told on the Floor of this House, and I understood it. The Ministers presumed that I understood their meaning. It is now clear that the city council, lawyers and accountants know that I understood what I was told concerning financial restrictions and probity, and in respect of my efforts to ensure that there was no massive financial loophole. They still know that that is my understanding, but they can top it out. They say, "We can get this through Parliament. No one will listen. They are just a few MPs, complaining. It will be OK. We'll roller-coast it through." I do not have to accept that. I find the council guilty and wanting in terms of the financial probity of the whole project.

Ms. Short: Does not my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is being


naive, to put it mildly, in suggesting that the council will comply with the new legislation? All our experience is that the limit set in the 1985 Act—with which I believed, naively, the council would comply—has been breached every year.

Mr. Rooker: I accepted the 1985 Act in good faith. I saw no reason to question the undertakings that I received. When I read the Bill, I thought, "That's fine. I wish it well." In fact, that Act has been breached every year. Above all, each year there have been breaches of the financial controls.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman makes certain allegations regarding lack of redress. That aspect must partly be dealt with by clause 19(1), (2), (3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and all thereafter, over nearly two pages. Clause 19(1) provides:
If any person entitled to an interest in premises suffers damage to or in respect of land or other loss in consequence of the restriction of access to those premises under section 5 (Closing of streets for motor races) of this Act the Council shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to such person compensation in respect of that damage or other loss.
It then recites the circumstances in which compensation is payable to people who have a rightful grievance regarding the strict interpretation and removal of obstacles not being dealt with in regard to the time schedule therein. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and any reasonable person would agree that the Bill contained myriad powers whereby the individual could take action, strictly in accordance with the legislation, if the council did not comply with the terms that the House was asked to agree in respect of the re-timetabling.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. It is a question of how one defines "an interest". People have an interest as businesses.

Mr. Bevan: And they are covered under clause 19(1).

Mr. Rooker: I know that they are, but people also have a wider interest, as ratepayers and as citizens of the city. An individual citizen reading the restrictions in the Bill regarding the removal of barriers may realise that they have not been complied with, even if he lives in postal district B30, which is way outside the area immediately affected, He may not even travel to work through the circular.
Such a person may ask the council by what lawful authority the barriers were erected so long before the race. He would point that, as Parliament did not allow a period longer than 10 days, the Act appeared to have been breached. That is the kind of complaint that concerns me. There is no redress for a citizen making such a complaint, who will only receive a reply reciting all the gateway wording that I have twice put on the record. Nevertheless, such an individual has as much right as anyone else to be satisfied that an Act of Parliament is being complied with, in respect of its generalities, in the same way that any business or domestic ratepayer in the immediate area of the circuit is entitled to compensation if damage is caused to their property.
My next point alludes to the remarks of the hon. Member for Yardley. We are told that the race is good for publicity, as measured by newspaper column inches, minutes of television coverage, and so on.

Ms. Short: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of compensation, may I point out that, although it is to be the same under the new legislation as under the 1985 Act, the Land Compensation Act 1961 has been widely found to be unsuitable for making small local claims. It involves a costly and cumbersome procedure that is not widely understood. Many of my constituents who lost income from their businesses as a consequence of the race examined the possibility of claiming compensation, but found that the expense would be too great. Although it may look as though compensation is available, in practice the process is such that people do not bother, even though they suffer a loss of income.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. I omitted to mention the wider legal costs involved for someone with a wider grievance. It is not a question of reporting the matter for investigation at no cost, through the district auditor, for example. Anyone who complains has quoted back at him other wording from the 1985 Act, so naturally he says to himself, "This is a waste of time. What are the MPs doing? Why did Parliament even get involved? It is all a con." It is totally outwith the resources of most people to take the matter to court.
I return to the question of costs, mentioned by the hon. Member for Yardley. In one of the brief interventions that I was allowed to make before the closure on our previous debate, I made the point that there is also a social cost. We know that someone has put a value on the advantages of the race. That is how the financial fiddle has been worked. I do not mean that the councillors themselves have been involved in any personal financial fiddle, but to me the way the project is run is a fiddle. But that is not a legal term. Not all the true costs are entered on the other side of the account.
I refer, for example, to the social cost of delaying road traffic. In the 13 November debate, I pointed out that the costs of delay, over two or four weeks, as a consequence of the building and dismantling of the circuit was estimated at £140,000 in respect of cars alone, not including lorries. That was based on normal assumptions, conservatively low traffic-flow estimates, and Department of Transport information. To date, my claim has not been rebutted. That £140,000 is an add-on cost. It is a cost to society that cannot really be quantified. Nevertheless, we know that society paid out that sum of money. The delays meant that £140,000 of taxpayers' money disappeared in that way. That amount cannot be specifically quantified, but we know that it was a cost attributable to the Birmingham super prix.

Mr. Roger King: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said about so-called social costs. He has mentioned the figure of £140,000. One accepts that public events—whether a milk race, a walkathon or a variety of things that take place on the public highway—will impinge on other road users. I think that that is agreed. So do roadworks, among other things. However, spread over 20 days and over the number of vehicles using the roads, the cost to the individual road user cannot amount to much more than a few pennies. That does not sound much to me. If one takes into account traffic flows in and out of Birmingham throughout the day spread over 20 days, the cost per individual road user will not be an astronomical sum.

Mr. Rooker: I am talking about the social costs—the costs to society. At the end of the day all those pennies, collected together, are paid for by taxpayers. If the hon. Member for Northfield has not learnt that lesson after all his years of service in this House, I am sorry for him. That enables me to understand why he can complain about some aspects of Labour council policy, which do not relate to this subject, and to support some of the crazy policies of the Government. Does he not make the connection between the crazy policies and the wider costs to society?
Someone has paid the £140,000 worth of social costs. We know that the money has been paid. Otherwise we would not have a road or a bridge building programme, and the Department of Transport would not do any road planning. The point is that those are developed because of measuring the cost, although one keeps the costs as low as possible.
My second to final point—there must be a word for that.

Ms. Short: Penultimate.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is more educated than I am. I shall probably not now make it my penultimate point, as I shall digress. Anyway, in relation to charges and concessions, I am upset about the Bill because I think it is another area where the Committee has not sufficiently considered the 1985 Act. Section 12 covers charges for admissions and concessions. The concessions are covered by the new clauses, and I shall not detail them because we can debate them at some other time.
There are no concessions in the 1985 Act—or rather there is a concession but it is discretionary on the council. It may give concessions of up to 10 per cent. for certain classes of people. It granted them one year but did not do it again. Then the council said that it would give a reduction for advance bookings rather than concessions. However, that is not the concession that we were seeking or were promised in 1985.
We know that attendance at the 1988 race on Sunday was made up of 31 per cent. people from Birmingham, 29 per cent. people from the midlands and 40 per cent. people from the rest of the country. On Monday the figures were 23 per cent. from Birmingham, 29 per cent. from the midlands and 48 per cent. from the rest of the country. One could argue that people in Birmingham had to go to work on Monday, but it was a bank holiday. Essentially the difference between Sunday and Monday was that the ticket price was vastly different and there was an 8 per cent. drop in attendance by Brummie people on Monday compared to Sunday. That is why we are asking for a concession as of right for Birmingham citizens.
We are told that it is difficult. I received a letter on 8 February 1989 from the chairperson of the road race committee which said that proof of residence was a problem to the organisers of the ticket sales. However, that problem has now been solved thanks to the stout work of the hon. Member for Northfield. He was a good bag-carrier and parliamentary private secretary to the poll tax Minister during consideration of the poll tax Bill. If the Government are looking for a scapegoat, I offer them the hon. Member for Northfield.
Proof of residence is no longer a problem with the poll tax. Every citizen who is registered for the tax Birmingham now has a number, and I see no reason why proof of registration for the poll tax cannot be used to get

a concession on tickets for the race. I claim that that is justified and required because so few of the public at the road race are Brummies, and on the day that the price goes up fewer Brummies attend. The reason for that must be the price of the tickets, and as long as Birmingham citizens are subsidising the road race out of their poll tax they should get as of right a concession on the ticket price.

Ms. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report of the project co-ordinator to the general purposes committee on 17 January which recommended:
In the light of representations made by Members of Parliament during discussions on the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill a 'Birmingham discount' be reintroduced. This will be for Monday trackside tickets purchased in advance and show a saving of £1·00 on the normal in advance ticket price. To ease problems of identification they have to be bought in person.
I thought that my hon. Friend might like to know that the pressure that we have put on has produced a result— they plan to reduce the increased ticket price by £1. Tickets are going up by £2 this year.

Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend know the tick et price?

Ms. Short: For Monday trackside tickets, purchased in advance, the price will be £9 plus £2, which is £11, purchased on the day £10 plus £2, purchased in advance for the grandstand, £25—which is going up by £5 to £30 —or £30 plus £5, to £35.

Mr. Rooker: One pound is not much, is it? I do not think that that is enough as a concession. It is not in the Bill, which says that concessions may be granted, but it does not give the right to grant a concession specifically to the citizens of Birmingham. This is one reason why I have tabled a new clause. The Bill lists qualified persons, but it does not include poll tax payers in Birmingham, and that is why that needs to be put into the Bill.
I look forward to seeing an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northfield during the later stages of the Bill.

Mr. Roger King: People know that I have advocated the merits of the community charge quite succinctly. The problem in Birmingham is that the wrong party is levying the charge at the moment. Next May things will be very different and the benefits will be obvious to the people of Birmingham.
When I read the amendment I found the idea of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the community charge attractive. I think that people in Birmingham should be able to come to the motor race with a privileged discount. I think that the wording of the Act is correct as it stands, and I am giving only a personal view, not a view on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, but the hon. Member's idea has some merits and might be worthy of examination in the future.

Mr. Rooker: I look forward to our debates on the amendments which can be changed if there is some problem with the wording. There is nothing to stop the promoters or the hon. Member for Northfield from tabling an amendment to the new clauses.
There is no need to play with words—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) wishes to intervene. No, he would not dare. It appears to be the promoters' intention to continue as before, except for the one issue just mentioned by the hon. Member for


Northfield. No financial controls will be exercised, and therefore section 14 of the 1985 Act is a dead duck. As long as that is the case, I shall oppose ratepayers and poll tax payers being asked to subsidise the race, which is why I shall try to stop the new clauses.
As a Member of Parliament representing the greatest number of poll tax payers in any constituency in Birmingham, I cannot do nothing or simply acquiesce to the council's requirements. It is not the fuction of Members of Parliament simply to rubber-stamp the council's requirements. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in our debates and procedures. What is planned in the Bill will be even worse if there is a grand prix, as I mentioned when I began my speech.
We have solid capital achievements in Birmingham—the national exhibition centre, the international convention centre and the forthcoming indoor sports hall. We are even doing more to deploy our fine heritage and to improve culture in the city, and the cost and expense of that is justifiable because it improves the capital assets and the human values of our city. The road race is a plughole down which ratepayers' and poll tax payers' money will be poured unless it is stopped.

Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to tell me how I can plug that hole with amendments.

Mr. King: I am not going to do that.
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, our city is full of plugholes down which money can be poured. A recent example is the £25 million overspend at the national exhibition centre. That is big money. However we interpret the accounts—and the city council has only gone along with what the auditor has told it to do—not subsidising the motor race would involve, on the most pessimistic estimate, a reduction in the so-called Knowles tax from £406 to £405. That is if we assume that it is being subsidised; I maintain that it is not.

Mr. Rooker: I deplore such outrageous personalisation of the debate. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the city council is under a legal obligation to set a budget. His scandalous remarks highlight what I said at the outset: this is the first known example of his supporting the city council, which in general he denigrates whenever he has the opportunity.
I am not here to debate the poll tax—I would be called to order if I did—but I must take up what the hon. Gentleman said about the national exhibition centre. The centre contributes to Birmingham's rate fund, and will do the same for poll tax payers; thus it constitutes an asset for the city and its people. It is deplorable that the hon. Gentleman should support proposals to privatise it.
I rest my case, and await the opportunity to debate the amendments and new clauses in due course.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in expressing sorrow at the absence of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). He would have dearly loved to be with us, and we hope

that he will soon be restored to health. The hon. Gentleman claimed that he would be with us in spirit, and doubtless he is—but, I suggest, with Conservative Members rather than with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's dearest wish would be for us to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible and for it to be carried as soon as possible with the largest possible majority, as it was on Second Reading —by, I believe, 145 to 24. Those figures substantiate the tremendous backing for the Bill, not only in the House but on the city council, on which both parties supported it almost to a man—and woman. I suspect that it will always have majority support—in the House, on the council and among the residents of Ladywood.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the opinions of people in Ladywood, so I suggest that he withdraw that remark. I know very much better than he does what they are thinking and saying about the race.
Let us put the hon. Gentleman's cheap jibe aside for a moment, however. He mentioned the votes on Second Reading. Perhaps he would care to give us the party breakdown. Should he not put on record that the 145-strong majority consisted overwhelmingly of Conservative Members, and that the opponents of the Bill were Labour Members? As he probably knows, Birmingham Members who oppose the race have not sought to mobilise support from their colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party: it is the Conservative party organisation that has brought the Bill this far.

Mr. Bevan: That would be extraordinary if it were true, because both parties were represented in the vote on Second Reading. Indeed, the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council requested that the Bill be passed —an example honourably followed by most of the Labour Members who were present at our last debate, as I was.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) tried to suggest that residents of the circuit area and its surroundings do not want the race, but that is entirely unsubstantiated and unproven. The promoter's arguments that local people want the race, however, are substantiated and proven—the many polls that have been carried out have produced an overwhelmingly favourable result. If anyone should withdraw remarks that are without foundation, I suggest that it is the hon. Lady.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue her dubious point.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make me extremely angry. If he claims to know more than I do about the views of people who live near the track in Ladywood, everyone in Birmingham who knows anything about the matter will join me in laughing at him. The residents have carried out their own polls, which have been cited in previous debates and which contradict the claims of the city council. If I remember rightly, in our last debate the hon. Gentleman himself read out the result of such a poll. It showed that—according to the city council's figures, and given the sample of residents who replied to the questions that it asked—nearly half opposed the holding of a four-day event.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly I read out the result of the poll, which showed a clear and substantial majority in favour of


the race. Furthermore, the amendments which have been diligently passed—they were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) so I will not repeat them—would considerably benefit the hon. Lady's constituents by giving them additional rights and powers. They would also protect the rights and powers of those who can take action under the compensation laws, and the business people involved. If the hon. Lady tried to resist the Bill's progress, she would ensure that the measures that the amendments would build into it would not be backed, and I am surprised that she should take such an attitude.
I remind the hon. Lady that the formulation of the Bill has taken a long time. It was some 20 years ago that I first voted in its favour in the then city council of Birmingham. We lost it then, but I remember that Sir Richard Knowles —in one of his first speeches on the council—spoke movingly in its support, and I know that he has not changed his mind. He wants the Bill to be passed and to become law. I repeat that the city council, hon. Members and the people of the city of Birmingham want the Bill to be passed.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman was an experienced councillor. I believe that he served for 20 years.

Mr. Bevan: Twenty-one.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman also has his own business. What does he think about the financial probity of section 14 of the 1985 Act? Section 14 was intended to provide a safety net which would not lead to a massive call on city resources, but it is not working—there is a loophole. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view about that? If so, it would help if he shared it with the House.

Mr. Bevan: I was a Member of Parliament, as was the hon. Member for Perry Barr, when the Birmingham City Council (No. 1) Bill was passed. I was satisfied with the provisions that were written into it. However, progress is being impeded. The Select Committee considered a series of amendments which it considered should be incorporated in the Bill. They deal with that aspect of the matter. The amendments deal to my complete satisfaction with whatever protection is necessary.

Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Gentleman has referred to
the amendments which have been made to the Bill. He says that they deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Will he explain which amendment deals with the loophole in section 14 of the 1985 Act which has been exploited? If he cannot find such an amendment—I do not think that he can—will he give us the benefit of his views instead of evading my hon. Friend's question? Why does he condone going back on the assurance given by Sir Reginald Eyre in 1985?

Mr. Bevan: The purpose behind consideration of the amendments is, regrettably, not just to debate them but to delay progress of the Bill. One result for the delay would be that the reforms to which the amendments would lead could not be incorporated in time for this year's race. Unless a tight timetable is followed, it will be impossible to incorporate them in the Bill, with the result that the benefit that would have been gained from them will be lost.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member

for Perry Barr. He has raised a separate issue to which we shall return later—which of the amendments will not be available to the city council for this year's race if the Bill is not passed. Many of the amendments made in Committee could have been observed by the city council during last year's race, had it had a mind so to do, but most or all of them were not observed. Before we deal with that point, however, will the hon. Gentleman please answer the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr? How does he defend the breaching of the assurance given by Sir Reginald Eyre on behalf of all the parties on the city council regarding the financial arrangements for the race?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer—the auditors demanded it. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and his hon. Friends continue to oppose the Bill, the amendments will not be incorporated in the Bill in time for this year's race. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether any of them can be incorporated if the proceedings are delayed unreasonably. I am certain that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman intends to follow the line adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and blame the auditors for the city council's failure to observe the assurances that were given, will he deal with a point made in a letter from Price Waterhouse, which the hon. Member for Northfield partially quoted on Second Reading? The auditors said:
The statement … is not correct."—
that is, that the assurance should be broken and the preamble used to justify the subsidy. One must also take note of what I said on Second Reading—which has not been denied—that I received a message from Price Waterhouse to the effect that
Price Waterhouse give advice to the city as well as audit the city s they do with all their clients.
The message then said:
I am pretty certain that I did not suggest … that the preamble of the 1985 Act should be used to justify this credit to the road race account."—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 268.]
The city auditor, apart from saying that he did not instruct the city council, also says that he does not think that he even suggested it.

Mr. Bevan: That was one of the main causes for reconsideration. The Bill has been commented on in detail and the amendments have been incorporated in the Bill.
Reference was made to the socio-economic disbenefit for lorries. The benefits for the citizens of Birmingham are beginning to become clear. The Bill has a great part to play in making the city's name known widely throughout the world. It would encourage substantial numbers of tourists to visit the city. Tourists bring about £1 billion to the west midlands each year. The Bill's provisions would bring more tourists to the city. We need to attract people to Birmingham in the most reasonable way that can be found. Birmingham is fast becoming one of the most attractive cities in Europe. It is well sited and is earning substantial sums of money for the city because people wish to visit it.
It would be wrong to impede the progress of the Bill when it is clear that the vast majority of the people of Birmingham want it to become law. The city council, with all-party support, wants the Bill. Local business wants the


race. The media want the race. Both ITV and the BBC will cover the event this year. The opponents of the race and of the Bill are a small minority.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has referred to all those who, he says, wants the Bill. Why, therefore, do the media not pay for it? Both the press and television have a vested interest in the race. It is an event. The media exist to report events and to cream off advertising from them, so why should the poll tax payers of Birmingham fund an event for the media? The hon. Gentleman must see the other side of the argument. I have no interest to declare other than as a Member of Parliament representing people who support and oppose the Bill, but I am determined to ensure that the idea that the poll tax payers should subsidise the road race is a non-starter.
The House provided the power to run the race for five years so long as it did not make a loss. That is the nub of the issue. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), in about four attempts he did not say whether he agreed with that proviso. Does he agree that the race should break even over eight years or the power be lost? By his silence he is saying that the council decides, for ever more and at whatever expense, that a media event can be foisted on the citizens of Birmingham who will have to pay for it.

Mr. Bevan: That is absolute nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I remind him that the Bill was promoted by a council of his own political complexion, with a Labour majority, as was the original Bill. The Labour council decided that an organisation within the city council or promoted as a result of the city council should be responsible for the running and promotion of the Bill. It was not the concept of my party; had it fallen to us to promote it, it might well have been promoted within the private sector, but it is not and I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to impede those who seek to promote the Bill on behalf of the majority within the city but to allow them to get on with the job.

Ms. Clare Short: The most generous thing that I can say about the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is that he has not attended in detail to the provisions of this Bill, the previous Bill or the matters we are discussing. He denied that it was suggested that the race should take place at whatever expense, yet we know that the framework in the previous Bill to control expense—which has been breached and is a cause of great anger to me and my hon. Friends —has been wiped out in the Bill that we are considering today.
The Bill gives powers to run a four-day event at whatever expense with no control and no constraint whatever. That is the case whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. Oddly, having told us how all shades of public opinion support the race, he went on to say that the Bill is being promoted by a Labour council. It is true that Labour is in control of the city of Birmingham as the people of Birmingham were wise enough to appreciate that they would get better care and support from a Labour council than from any other. However, the Bill has support and dissent from both parties on the city council.

The hon. Gentleman should admit that. Recently the leader of the Tory group on the city council has started expressing doubts in the local papers. That is probably because the tide of public opinion is moving well away from the Bill. He is starting to say that perhaps the road race should be reconsidered; perhaps it should not be funded by the council but handed over to a private company. I know that only because it has appeared in local papers on a number of occasions.
The hon. Member for Yardley pretended that that was the position adopted by Conservative members of Birmingham city council throughout. That is simply false; it is a new idea. His colleagues on Birmingham city council were wise enough to pick up the fact that public opinion is rapidly moving against the race and are beginning to think about whether it would be better run by a private company. That is an interesting argument. Had a private company attempted to run the race, it would have closed down long ago as the race cannot even cover its costs let alone make a profit.
The hon. Gentleman used an argument about the race that has been used a number of times—that it gives glory to Birmingham throughout the world. That argument makes me squirm. I am proud of my city. The industrial revolution started in Birmingham and the first factories developed in Factory road in the Ladywood constituency. Certainly the city council has not erected any memorial to those enormous events. The steam engine was adapted for use commercially and in manufacturing and that helped to develop the industrial revolution. All those things happened in Birmingham. Birmingham is the second city of Britain; it has an enormous pride and a history of which we could boast throughout the world.
Yet here we have a two-day race taking place in the middle of the city around a residential area. It is deeply unpopular with the people who live there, it disrupts traffic going in and out of the city for weeks on either side of the race and it cannot cover the costs. The hon. Gentleman thinks so little of our city that he thinks that that would give it any glory—running a two-day race that cannot cover its costs. Most people in Birmingham know it is a joke, but the hon. Gentleman appears not to realise that.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Lady has been associated with Birmingham for much less time than I have. During my entire life which has been spent in Birmingham I have admired and helped my city in whatever way I could. I concede, and I should have thought that the hon. Lady would concede, that the race can make the city attractive in another way, adding to tourism and increasing its income. If she cannot, she has a terrible blind spot.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has made a very grave allegation against me—he has accused me of being younger than he is. I do not know whether I should apologise for the fact that I have been associated with Birmingham for a shorter time than the hon. Gentleman, assuming that the hon. Gentleman was born and grew up in Birmingham.

Mr. Bevan: I was born and bred in Birmingham.

Ms. Short: So was I. The only reason I have been associated with Birmingham for a shorter time than the hon. Gentleman is that I am not quite as old as he is.

Mr. Bevan: That is right; she should be pleased.

Ms. Short: That does not make for a very interesting debate, although we should consider at what point one's contribution to the city might decline with age.
The hon. Gentleman said that ITV and the BBC intend to cover the race this year. That is interesting, because last year there was a real danger that Central was not going to cover the race. It was such a failure it was not thought to be worthwhile and some financial arrangements were made to induce Central to televise the race, such was its fame and glory throughout the world.
The Bill should not be considered further. I was disappointed at the outcome of its consideration in Committee. It is a widely held view that the private Bill procedure in the House needs to be reviewed as it is deeply unsatisfactory. When a public Bill is considered in Committee, we seek to put on the Committee those hon. Members who have spoken on Second Reading and have some knowledge of and interest and expertise in the matters contained in the Bill because the Committee stage is about scrutiny of detail and one wants interested people who bring some expertise to the Committee. On private Bills we require hon. Members who know absolutely nothing about the subject matter or the area concerned to sit on a Committee to consider the Bill in detail. That is an extremely bad procedure which is increasingly widely criticised and is exemplified by the Committee stage of this Bill.
I would not criticise any individual hon. Members who served on that Committee, but if I were to have to consider some affair involving the people of Mansfield, for example, I would consider myself in a poor position to do so as I have no continuing relationship with the people of Mansfield and would not be able to take their views into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) did the best job he could in Committee, but the procedures of the House and the requirement that hon. Members considering private Bills in Committee should have no contact with the area or the subject matter of the Bill mean that inevitably the quality of that consideration will be limited.
I am disappointed with the outcome of the Committee stage. It led to recommendations on how the race would be better run and on how residents would be more sensitively considered, of which I approve. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has accepted those undertakings on behalf of the promoters, but the legislative requirements of the previous Bill have not been complied with. Matters such as the noise of erecting barriers are of enormous importance to local residents. All the rules that were laid down have been breached. People have been kept up all night by horrendous noise days before the race is due to take place.
Given that the legal requirements of the previous Bill were breached, I am sad to say that I do not feel comforted or assured that the undertakings recommended by the Committee will be complied with. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield said in good faith that they will be, but I have no confidence that that will happen.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Through her, I should like to make a point to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). He put on the record the undertakings given by the promoters in the full knowledge that Sir Reginald Eyre did the same on the previous Bill. Is he certain that he is not being used? If Sir Reginald Eyre were able to participate in our

proceedings, it would be interesting to see how he would react to the previous undertakings not being complied with. This is a serious matter—it certainly is not something we should take lightly. I hope that the hon. Member for Northfield will not take it lightly, because he will have to live with its consequences.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. If we return to this matter because the city council wants to extend its powers in the future—given its track record, it may wish to do so —the odds are that the hon. Member for Northfield will no longer be a Member of Parliament. He may therefore end up in exactly the same position as Sir Reginald Eyre, who in good faith said, "It is not my wish or the wish of the promoters of the Bill that it should cost the ratepayers of Birmingham a penny." I believed that undertaking and thought that my hon. Friends and I had done a good job in improving the Bill. I am shocked that the undertakings that he gave were meaningless and have been so deeply breached.

Mr. Roger King: The hon. Lady will agree that setting up the super prix, with all the engineering work, public relations and infrastructure required for such an event, requires quite a learning curve, to use modern jargon. The city has done its level best to stage the event with the minimum of inconvenience to the local community. There is no doubt that there has been inconvenience. There has been a race around Monaco for 40 years, and the authorities probably got it right many years ago, but what the city council has done in a short time is creditworthy.
It is accepted that, in the light of experience, some changes are necessary. I spoke with our former colleague, Sir Reginald Eyre, on Thursday evening. He endorsed the necessity and urgency of the race for Birmingham's Heartlands and for the other areas of the city that need redevelopment. He said, "It is true that we have learned from experience." That is why we brought forward the Bill and why the city has given commitments on the conduct of the race. I do not run the motor race or supervise the work force; that is the job of city officers, who are accountable to city councillors and hon. Members. I understand from their communications with me that they intend to use their best endeavours to carry out to the letter the requirements stipulated in the Bill.

Ms. Short: Officials of Birmingham city council are not accountable to hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield gave that undertaking in good faith, but officials will not be accountable to him, unless, when he loses his seat, he stands for election to Birmingham city council and makes them acccountable and pursues any breach of the undertakings.
My hon. Friends and I accept that there is a learning curve, which is why we were keen, when setting the original structure for financial accountability, not to require the race to break even in the first or second year. A new event takes time to get going, which is why we thought that five years would provide sufficient evidence of whether it would work. Experience so far shows that it cannot cover its costs.
I visited my constituents during last year's race and experienced the horrendous noise of it. Despite the council saying that it would tackle the problems of the erection of barriers and the inconvenience to local people, my constituents believe that there has been no improvement,


that the race is outrageous and that the council does not bother to listen to local people. Simple things could be done that would lessen the irritation of the race.
The hon. Member for Northfield mentioned Sir Reginald Eyre, whom I see occasionally on trains between London and Birmingham. He is not present to give his views, but he originally said that the race should not cost the ratepayers of Birmingham anything. He did not say, "But they will not mind paying £500,000 a year for so-called advertising." The undertakings that he gave have been breached. The hon. Member for Northfield reported him as saying that the race is essential for the future of Heartlands. I find that an improbable statement for him to make, and when I next see him I shall ask whether he made it.

Mr. Terry Davis: Sir Reginald Eyre's name has been bandied about and was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may like to know that I have discussed the race with Sir Reginald Eyre. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall give testimony contrary to that given by the hon. Member for Northfield.
I intervened on my hon. Friend's factual speech to remind her of two points. First, she rightly said that we did not ask the council to make a profit or to break even within a year or two, but it said that it would do so within three years. My hon. Friends and I wanted to be generous. We said, "You may miss your target by £10, £15, £100 or £500, and we should not want you to be compelled, for such a small amount of money, to stop the road race. Let us make it five years, which will be plenty of time." It said, "Thank you very much. That is very generous, constructive and helpful." We were trying to help the city council. Sir Reginald Eyre at least appreciated that point.
Secondly, my hon. Friend said that the city council and Sir Reginald Eyre stated that there had been an improvement. One other person said that adding clause 14 to the Bill was a big improvement—the hon. Member for Northfield, who said so on local radio.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he spoke, I remembered that we started with a three-year break-even point. I remember the fantastic figures announced when the Bill was first suggested—the number of people who would watch the race, the amount of money that would be made—and the suggestions that the race would fund improvements to all the rotten housing stock in which many of my constituents live. It was going to be the most profitable operation that had ever been heard of.
We did not want to be unhelpful, but we were sceptical about some of the leaflets, projections, public relations exercises and hype—which, no doubt, cost a lot of money. We could have tabled an amendment to hold the council to its projections on the profitability of the road race, but we asked only that it cover its costs, and it has not done so. That is a damning indictment of the Bill.
I explained why the Committee proceedings on private Members' Bills were deeply unsatisfactory and why we needed to review the procedures. I said that, although the undertakings recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Bill's promoters were in themselves

worthy, I was not confident that they would be complied with, given our experience of the first Bill and the fact that the legal requirements were not met.
The Committee stage was a deep disappointment also because the Committee failed to consider the costs of the race. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will say something about those matters. The disappointment and anger of my colleagues and people in Birmingham go beyond the people of Ladywood, who are annoyed about the disruption to their lives on a personal level. There is concern about the lack of a firm programme of financial control for the race.
Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), under an amendment to the first Bill, the powers to run the race were to lapse if it did not cover its costs in five years. That amendment was welcomed by everyone. Everyone—including the hon. Member for Northfield on radio—said that it showed that the procedures were helpful and good, that it was a better Bill and that they wanted those financial constraints. If it was such a good amendment, why was it not incorporated in the second Bill? Why is there no framework under which the race has to break even and cover its costs or the power to run the race will lapse?
I am sorry to say this, but it must be put on the record. An offer was made to us: "Drop the opposition and we will give you a financial constraint. If you will not agree to shut up, let the Bill proceed and not raise any other points, we will not give you a financial constraint." That is the wrong way to do business. It is a matter not just of the disruption that will be caused to the people living in the area, especially those in Ladywood. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is a plug hole. The fact that it costs too much for the people of Birmingham is of concern to all the people of Birmingham.
The people of Birmingham will soon have to pay far too much in poll tax because of the Government's duplicity in setting a figure that cannot be reached anywhere in the country, except where they make special arrangements—funny places such as Westminster. The Government try to pretend that it is the fault of Birmingham city council that the poll tax has been set at £400, but the same thing is happening throughout the country in many Tory areas where councils cannot meet the Government's poll tax projections.
The Committee stage was a grave disappointment because of its failure to deal with the costs of the road race, the inaccuracy of the accounts and the way in which the intentions behind clause 14 had been undermined. For those reasons alone, the Bill should not be further considered. In responding to the speech of the hon. Member for Yardley, I said that opinion in Birmingham was moving firmly against the race. I have a few cuttings of letters to local newspapers that provide evidence. In a letter written on 15 February—my birthday, as a matter of fact—Mrs. Iris Worsley of Goodge street, Highgate asks:
Can Sir Richard Knowles tell me and all Birmingham Poll Tax payers what percentage of the £406 per head he intends to waste again on this year's Super Prix?
It is interesting to note that the sponsor of the Bill failed to answer that question. The people of Birmingham will be


interested to hear that answer. The hon. Member for Northfield tells us that it will cost each and every one of them£1, but we shall have to examine the poll tax figure.
A letter appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 13 February 1990 from Mrs. J. I. Holborn of Grosvenor road in Harborne, who is also concerned about the community charge:
The Super Prix must be abandoned".
That was one of her recommendations for reducing the community charge. Another interesting letter appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 31 January 1990. It was from Dr. B. S. Smith FRCP, consultant physician, and it concerned the threat to the general hospital in Birmingham. Everyone from Birmingham knows that that matter causes great concern and gives rise to intense passion—perhaps even more than the super prix. Dr. Smith wrote to defend Sir James Ackers and felt that much of the criticism had been unfair. Hon. Members may remember the letter. It was extremely unusual to find such a letter among all the letters from Birmingham residents who passionately wanted the hospital to be kept——

Mr. Bevan: It was one of four.

Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Yardley seems to have added up the letters in support of the plans for the general hospital and says that there were four. Although Dr. Smith was out of line with public opinion on the matter of that hospital, he said in his letter:
There is a certain irony that the City Fathers can organise an event which blocks off the Bristol Road for several days —merely so that a few vehicles can travel round and round in circles at high speed. Yet, the same establishment cannot provide year round convenient and rapid access via the Bristol Road (or some alternative route) to the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth sites.
Clearly Dr. Smith thinks that the road race is a bit of a joke and he suggests that the city fathers might do better to organise transport systems to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I do not know about the hon. Member for Northfield, but I know that most Birmingham Members would disagree with Dr. Smith, and would wish to retain the general hospital, although we would wish it to be refurbished and would be willing to consider parts of it being put to different use.

Mr. Bevan: I must agree with the hon. Lady. I wish —as she obviously does—to see the general hospital retained, as a hospital within the medical orbit of the city of Birmingham.

Ms. Short: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on something.
I was referring to the tide of public opinion and to recent letters in the local press. In the Birmingham Post on Friday 17 November appeared a letter from Ruth M. Naish of Constance road, Birmingham 5. She said that she agreed with my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill and me about the road race and said that she had been angered by the comment made by Reg Hales of Four Oaks, who had apparently said that we should stop our "carping and moaning". That rather elegant phrase was aimed at my hon. Friends and me.
Ruth M. Naish writes of Reg Hales:
What does he know about it? His consituents live far enough away from the track of the road race to have any conception of the feeling there is against it by those of us who live on my side of the city (Birmingham 5) though of course, all Birmingham residents will be forced to pay for it, directly or indirectly. I can't help wondering how many of the 152

MPs who voted for the Super Prix know anyone who lives in South Birmingham, let alone live there themselves. What right do they have to legislate for our lives?
That is something of an answer to the hon. Member for Northfield who boasted about the number of hon. Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. It is interesting to examine who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. It was quite obvious from the vote that the Government had a formal arrangement to ensure that the Bill was carried—that there was a closure and that there were at least 100 supporters here. For example, a number of Ministers voted and, as I said last time I spoke, the Chief Whip came into the Chamber while the hon. Member for Northfield was on his feet and his speech was abruptly curtailed. It was obvious that informally the Government were organising the vote to pass the road race Bill. Given that that was the case, it is misleading to claim that hon. Members who voted in its favour had listened to the arguments and were persuaded that the race was good for Birmingham, rather than that there was some hackish organisation of the vote for whatever questionable reasons by the Tory leadership.

Mr.Bevan: The hon. Lady should know that it is not just her female perspicacity that enabled her alone to recognise instantly what the Chief Whip was up to. It was obvious to everybody. I was asked to conclude quickly to allow another Labour Member to speak as that was essential. That gesture allowed the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) to speak. Those who voted for the Bill are well aware of the views of the people in the south of Birmingham. I can guarantee that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the race. Reg Hales lives in the very road next to the park through which the RAC rally goes through Sutton Coldfield. We watch it when it is in Sutton park.

Ms. Short: That is extremely interesting, but Ruth M Naish is not talking about the RAC rally. I do not have a view about the RAC rally that goes through Sutton park. I am not aware of its existence. We are not discussing that today. The fact that Reg Hales goes to the RAC rally is neither here nor there.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Lady said that Reg Hales knew nothing about car racing. He has racing next to his road in the local park.

Ms. Short: I am sorry, but that is not what I said. I shall quote again from the letter of Ruth M. Naish because she should not be misrepresented. She said of Reg Hales:
What does he know about it? His constituents live far enough away from the track of the road race to have any conception of the feeling there is against it by those of us who live on my side of the city (Birmingham 5) though of course, all Birmingham residents will be forced to pay for it, directly or indirectly.
She did not say and I would not dream of saying that Reg Hales knows nothing about road racing. I am well aware that the hon. Member for Northfield is keen on it. That makes his motive for promoting the Bill questionable. It is his hobby. Fine. He enjoys it and spends his time on it. Fine. He is trying to inflict on my constituents this wretched, expensive, disruptive race so that he and his friends can take pleasure at the expense of my constituents. For all I know, Reg Hales may go with the hon. Gentleman to every racing event. That is not in question, but what is in question is that he lives a long way


from the track. Ruth M. Naish is saying that it is clear from what he says that Reg Hales has no concept of how the people who live near the track feel about it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Because of our procedures on these Bills, few hon. Members know anything about the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) criticised the Committee, but at least it visited the area. I could not go on the visit but I went later, walked round the area and formed my opinion. Hon. Members who come from Birmingham understand the area and one or two hon. Members may have been to the road race and formed attitudes from that experience. Otherwise, we are very much in the dark and are acting on the myth that hon. Members have poured over the Committee's report on its detailed investigations. There is something problematic about our procedures. The House should have at least sufficient hon. Members present to consider the points that are raised on behalf of constituents in the area whose daily lives will be affected by the Bill.

Ms. Short: When I criticised the outcome of the Committee stage, and said that I did not think that the Bill should be given time for further consideration, I should have made it clear that it was a criticism not of the individuals concerned, who did the best job that they could, but of the procedures of the House for dealing with private Bills. The requirement that people who have no connection with the area concerned should deal with the Bill is nonsense. The Committee stage and the good work of the individuals concerned is blemished by the broad structures within which they have to work.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Under our present procedures, however conscientious people are, and even though they may miss some procedural tricks, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. We need different procedures to ensure that investigations take place in the Birmingham area and that account is taken of the views expressed.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a mounting feeling among those who organise the business of the House that private Bill procedures are becoming intolerable. We must re-examine those procedures and introduce better organisation.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right. I looked today at the Standing Orders for private business, which are twice the size of the Standing Orders for public business. It is ludicrous that Birmingham Members were prevented from participating in the Committee stage. It is a throwback. Private Bills used to relate only to the building of roads and canals. At that time, hon. Members were up to their necks in financial interests, and they were rightly prevented from participating in the Committee stages. We have no vested interest whatsoever. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has a vested interest—it may not be financial—yet he can sponsor the Bill on behalf of its promoters. That is a paradox in itself.
I will make one further point concerning what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about the Second Reading of the Bill. Let us not beat about the bush. If my memory serves me correctly, you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on

18 April. Of course, we do not hear private conversations, but the only reason that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was told to sit down and let me speak for seven minutes was that the occupant of the Chair—I can put myself in his position—had made it clear that he would not accept a closure motion unless an alternative view was put. On reflection, it was stupid of me to speak. The hon. Member for Yardley gave way only so that I could have a few minutes to satisfy the balance of the argument, and then the closure was accepted. The only reason that happened was that the hon. Gentleman had a visit from his Chief Whip.

Ms. Short: It is a strong convention that we never say on the Floor of the House what we have been told in informal discussions with the Chair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was generous when he praised the way that the hon. Member for Northfield had ably promoted the Bill. The hon. Member for Northfield spoke at some length on that occasion and that called into question whether a closure would be granted, because of the unbalance that it caused in the debate. Some smart footwork had to be done. There was a change of mind about whether a closure should be granted by some of the powers that be, and that might be related to the hon. Member for Yardley having his speech foreshortened. I will never forget the way that he virtually fell on the floor when his Chief Whip moved up the stairs in the middle of the Gangway, before he had even heard what the message was. That tells us something about the modern-day Conservative party and the degree of democracy and consultation with which it works. That incident is imprinted on my brain as a little cameo which I will never forget.
I shall refer to recent letters that appeared in the local press about the super prix, which demonstrate a swell of opinion away from that race. The biggest measure of that change is the shift of opinion by the Conservative party and its leadership on the city council. On this matter, unlike so many others, it seems able to read the tide of public opinion. The Government may have had that skill at one time, but they have lost it in recent months.
The Birmingham Evening Mail of Friday 17 November included a letter by Hugh H. Williams of Birmingham 31. He said that he gathered that the super prix was being extended, that he was neither for nor against the event, but that he wanted to make a serious suggestion. He wrote:
As it is the citizens of this city who underwrite the losses and not Halfords, could we not re-name the event and delete Halfords in the publicity blurb? Why not simply Birmingham Super Prix?
Mr. Williams knows that it costs money and that the citizens have to pay for it. He does not believe that Halfords should get the credit for the costs to those citizens.
Another letter which appeared on Friday 17 November came from Richard Munro of King's Heath. He said that he was
tired of reading about the Super Prix"—
he will be even more tired tomorrow I am afraid.
It is a pity the money spent on this expensive and disruptive frivolity was not invested in improving the city's appalling traffic conditions … I am also irritated"—
I wonder whether the hon. Members for Northfield and for Yardley recognise the name Richard Munro.

Mr. Roger King: Yes.

Ms. Short: Mr. Munro said in his letter:
I am also irritated by the impression given by Parliamentary reports that Conservatives favour the Super Prix.
I am the secretary of a Ward Conservative Association and I for one disassociate myself from the Super Prix.
Birmingham has other attractions for visitors and residents which do not cause inconvenience to those living near them.
There seems to be a difference of opinion in all parties on the council about this matter. Local opinion is opposed to the race and across the city the tide of public opinion is increasingly moving against it.
When those who are trying to promote the Bill for the city council are irritated by the criticisms of my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill and myself they constantly try to make a distinction between us. They say that they understand why I should be opposed to the race because, by implication, they know that my constituents hate it. They say that they expect me to voice such an opinion, but they find it intolerable that my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill should be against the race. By advancing such an argument it is clear that the powers that be in the city council recognise that the race is deeply unpopular with the people who must live with it. They think that it is okay for me to speak against it because they know that I am the representative of those people. That is an intolerable attitude. If the race is unbearable to those who must live with it, it is not good enough. We should not have road races in residential areas. We should not have races that make it impossible for people to hear themselves think, for elderly people to get in and out to do their shopping or to be visited by their relatives.
People who want to go to the races should attend purpose-built tracks. The hon. Member for Northfield knows better than I where such tracks can be found. I believe that on the grounds of safety, efficiency and disruption, races should take place on such tracks. There is no question but that the existing race causes enormous disruption and noise to the local people.

Mr. Rooker: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said about the almost subliminal attempt to separate the two representatives of the northern, outer-city suburbs from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) who represents the other side of the city centre. It is disingenuous to suggest that the road has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is at one with us about the Bill, but, because of his other duties, he is unable to participate in our debate.
When we started to deploy the financial argument the look of horror on the face of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)—I regret that she has left the Chamber, but this is not an attack on her —was telling. She also has constituents who are involved. There is evidence from some reports that I have read that she has started seriously to question the financial arrangements of the race. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) shaking his head. I could see the hon. Lady's face and he could not. It reflected the horror as the financial effects started to dawn on Conservatives Members who, by and large, with the exception of the two who are in the Chamber, have not studied the matter.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. I should like to make it clear that I think that all decent democrats should seriously take account of the views of the people who live in the area where the race is run. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I oppose the race because our two constituencies are affected by it. Given the political sub-alliances across the Birmingham, it may be a slight surprise that the leader of the Labour group on the city council is on one side of the argument and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook is on the other. It is notable that the Members of Parliament representing the two constituencies in which the race was run are opposed to the race. All good democrats should listen to them and the people who live in those two constituencies and around the road race.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hodge Hill and for Perry Barr are to be congratulated on listening to and caring about the views of people whose lives are disrupted by the road race. Members of Parliament for other areas of the city should have more respect for local people.

Mr. Corbett: I know that my hon. Friend will not want this both ways. A few moments ago she was saying that any of us, as Members of Parliament in the city, have the right to take a view on the road race, whether we and our constituents are near to or a long way from the track. She keeps asserting that the majority of the people in her constituency and, perhaps by implication, in the city go to the road race. Is she also aware that at least one opinion poll showed that the road race enjoys popular support? That does not do away with the objectors, but it shows that the majority of the citizens of Birmingham are in favour of the road race.

Ms. Short: I am aware of the polling and we discussed it earlier today—perhaps my hon. Friend was not here. The result of the last poll was not sent to all of us. However, following a reference to it by the hon. Member for Yardley during, I think, the debate on Second Reading, I wrote to the leader of the city council and obtained copies of the poll results. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington will know that, with all polls, it is possible to construct samples and questions to produce different results so that any one poll is not necessarily absolute evidence of the opinion of people, particularly those living locally who are affected by the race.
Speaking from memory, the last poll that I saw. and which was referred to in the House, showed that nearly half of those questioned thought that the four-day event should not be supported. Therefore, the polling evidence available—it is difficult because we do not have it in front of us—shows that there is declining support for the race among local people.
Of course, it is the right of hon. Members to take a view on the road race. Just as it is my right to oppose it, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has a right to support it. I would not question that for a moment. However, I was trying to deal with the suggestion that has been made repeatedly that it is reasonable and democratic for me to oppose it because its promoters realise that it is deeply unpopular among the people who live around the track, but it is not all right for other Birmingham Members to oppose it because they do not represent the people who are directly affected by it. That seems to be a deeply undemocratic argument. Those


representing people who do not live close to an event should respect the views of those who live close to it. That is an important part of the democratic process.
Another point made in one of the letters that I read out earlier is that the financial cost is a matter for every single ratepayer, poll tax payer and citizen of Birmingham. It is the duty of every Member of Parliament in Birmingham to take the finances seriously. We all have exactly the same interest in that, regardless of the area that we represent.
Next I turn to the unpopularity of the race among local residents because of the disruption that it causes. I went to the race for the first time last year. I did not partake of the hospitality, nor did I sit in the grandstand, but I visited a number of my constituents who live in the area. The noise was unbearable. People were going around with machines to measure the noise—on behalf of the city council and on behalf of informal groups. It is strange that the findings of that monitoring have not been made available to us. Even with the windows closed the noise exceeded recommended industrial safety levels. It was very intense, if only for short periods.

Mr. Harry Barnes: When my hon. Friend visited constituents in the area of the track, was she able, as a Member of Parliament, to go straight through, or did she require a pass to get into the central area—as the people who live in that area required?

Ms. Short: I needed a pass; the whole area is fenced off, like a prison camp. One cannot enter without a pass. We were all sent letters asking whether we wanted to go and whether we wanted passes to get into the road races. I received a pass because I had promised months before to visit my constituents.
One of the constituents whom I visited that day had been taken ill the day before and his doctor had not been allowed in because he did not have an appropriate pass. Supposedly, proper arrangements had been made, but the doctor had been turned away and had to return later. By the time my constituent got his prescription he was quite ill.
These are serious issues. In another of the houses that I visited that day there lived a young man whose job it was to be on call to go and repair cars, but he was not allowed to bring his car in and out of the area. Residents are supposed to be able to drive into certain roads, and he had to choose whether to park his car outside the fence where it was in danger of being vandalised by strangers who, perhaps, had had too much to drink, or to keep it inside and face the consequent difficulties when he was called out. These inconveniences do not amount to much singly, but they become exasperating for residents in the circumstances that I have described.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The point that my hon. Friend is making is well illustrated by the fact that the elected representative of the people of the area could not get in without a pass, which seems monstrous.

Ms. Short: I do not tend to stand on ceremony—as long as I could get in, that was all right by me. It was interesting, however, that the people staffing the gates did not know the local residents. We were promised, with the original Bill, that large numbers of jobs would be provided for local

people, but the people employed on the gates knew no one. I do not know who they were, but they were certainly not locals.
The present two-day race causes terrible noise and disruption; a four-day event would be unthinkable. That is another major reason why the Bill should not be further considered. The case for a four-day event is being argued with local people with a certain duplicity on the subject of whether it is likely to turn into a grand prix. A four-day event would be bad enough but a grand prix would be horrendous. There would be a great deal of noise. It is a different formula and the highest formula race is incredibly noisy and hurts the ears. Advice is given now that children should have their ears protected and a grand prix would be much more noisy than previous races.
When local people object to the potential noise and disruption of a four-day event they are told that there is no chance of a grand prix. It is said that, although it has been talked about, the track is not big enough and neither are the pits, which is what I think they are called. On the other side of the argument people try to project the level of fame and glory and the amount of tourist revenue that such a race would bring to Birmingham. In other locations the argument is advanced, as it has been advanced in the debate by the hon. Member for Northfield, that the aim is to get the grand prix.
The Bill should cease to be considered right now, because a grand prix being staged along the end of people's gardens close to their windows is an intolerable concept. No one who has been in those houses and has listened to the noise would dare to vote for it.

Mr. Rooker: I am open to challenge about what I said earlier. This circuit would be of no use for a grand prix. For a start people could not be accommodated around the circuit. If every available area was blocked off for spectators, all the people who wanted to see the race could still not be accommodated because it is not possible to erect grandstands on most of the circuit. It is beyond reasonableness to use this circuit for a serious grand prix on the world scale. All the other city grand prix circuits are not like the one in Birmingham. The grand prix in Adelaide, Australia and in Monaco have a lie of the land, access to the circuit and spectator accommodation utterly different from the circuit presently used in inner-city Birmingham. Such a race would require a totally different circuit. Conservative Members may shake their heads, but they should go to the circuit and have a look to see where spectators could be accommodated.

Mr. Bevan: rose——

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on me because I am intervening on my hon. Friend.

Ms. Short: I shall reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and then I shall be happy to allow the hon. Member for Yardley to make his point.
I am not an expert on motor racing. I am happy to say that I have not wasted many hours of my life attending races. I went once in my youth and thought how silly it was to stand by the side of the road and see some cars go by very fast and then wait for a few minutes to see it all happen again. It seems a silly activity to me. However, I am happy that people such as the hon. Member for Northfield should engage in such a silly activity. If it gives him pleasure good luck to him, provided he pays for it


himself and does not require my constituents, who will have great difficulty in paying the poll tax, to pay for his hobbies and provided it does not disrupt people who do not want to be there. That is what is so unbearable about running the race around the houses of people who do not choose to be there. It is all right if the hon. Member for Northfields pays for his ticket and spends his Sunday afternoon following this rather silly hobby. That is fair enough, but it is not fair to impose it on my constituents.
I can claim some expertise. Last year when I was there there was a motor sport television team making some kind of programme about the race. A man interviewed me, but he did not know much about road racing, although the people who run such programmes generally do. He said that he thought it was extremely exciting because of the noise and because it was on ordinary streets. That was the good part. However, he said that the circuit was rotten because there was so few points from which one could see much of the race. He said, "There is no chance of it going much further. The excitement comes from having a race on ordinary streets and the noise and the smell." Apparently those are the things that turn on the aficionados, but he said that this was a rotten, useless circuit because it had so few vantage points. I cannot claim to make that point with authority but this expert who makes television programmes about such matters told me that.

Mr. Bevan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I am glad that she has reached a breach in the sentence. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned Monaco. That is an extraordinarily restricted circuit. It is much more restricted than Birmingham, the race is on much narrower streets and there is much less capability of erecting stands. So let us get it right: if' permission were granted, the present circuit could well meet any requirements that might be imposed.
The hon. Lady is quite wrong in attributing to herself superiority of philosophical definition in suggesting that everybody who follows motor racing is childish. Millions of people in this country follow motor racing, and in the city of Birmingham there are many, many thousands who want to follow it. Indeed, they are in the majority. It is just as wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest otherwise as it was for the hon. Member for Perry Barr to suggest that there was a look of horror on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) when she listened to the financial horrors that he said were unfolding. My hon. Friend's expression was just as seraphic as it had been during "Songs of Praise" yesterday.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman suggests that, somehow, I am insulting people who enjoy road racing. Actually, I am very pleased that people are different. People engage in all sorts of extraordinary hobbies. Not one of us engages in all of them, and some of us do not understand why the activities in which some people engage on a Sunday afternoon could possibly be enjoyable. But some people enjoy watching road racing. I think that it is extraordinary that people should want to spend their time doing that. I tried it once. I saw cars going by very fast, then it was very boring for a moment, and then the cars went by very fast again. To me, road racing is not interesting or enjoyable, but the hon. Member for Northfield can enjoy it if he wishes. Of course he can, but he should pay for it himself, and he should not disrupt people who do not want to have road racing in their area.

Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend saying that, even if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—the amendment on the financial side—were acceptable, even if the money aspect were put right and were acceptable to the city council, she still would not want any form of racing, any day of the year, anywhere near her constituency?

Ms. Short: No. I have made it clear previously that I think that there is a majority for a two-day event. This is the problem. Some of my constituents are passionately hostile to the whole thing and wish that racing had never been held in Birmingham. Some people have always been opposed to it, whereas others, having experienced it, have become deeply opposed to it. A poll of local residents has shown that there is a majority in favour of a two-day event, but overwhelming opposition to a four-day event.
I am most anxious that this Bill should be defeated. I say to the hon. Member for Yardley that it is completely honourable to use the procedures of the House, including the possibility of having the Bill amended. If that causes the Bill to fall, I shall be overjoyed. That is my intention. It would be in the interests of the people of Birmingham, including my constituents. If it does fall, there will still be legal power for the running of a two-day race in Birmingham. In my opinion, there should be financial constraints in respect of the two-day race. That would be the best framework for road racing in Birmingham—if it is to be held there at all.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The thing that is particularly obnoxious about the suggestion that there should be a grand prix, lasting four days, instead of a super prix is that it would be a moveable feast. It could be held at any time, including holiday periods. In the case of a two-day or three-day event during a holiday period, people, at least theoretically, have an opportunity to get away from the area. However, during a working period, and especially when the event includes a Friday and a Monday, they have no opportunity to get away, so their lives, as well as the commercial life of the area, with which many of them are associated, are disrupted completely.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a point on which I have not yet touched, but it is one of great importance. Why power has to be taken to organise racing on any occasion, not including a bank holiday, [really do not know. The disruption implications are dreadful.
I am most anxious to bring my remarks to an end. tabled an amendment to the effect that the whole event should be moved to Northfield. I am sorry that the amendment was not selected. I should love to know whether the hon. Member for Northfield would have supported it and whether, if he had, it would have been popular with his constituents. If Birmingham people who live elsewhere are in favour of it but would not want it in their own backyards, there is something wrong with it.

Mr. Roger King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to give my views on that matter. I would be quite agreeable to the same procedure as was adopted by the city council—a survey of residents around the proposed circuit to ascertain whether they would welcome the race.
If, as happened when the hon. Lady undertook her original canvass, a substantial number of constituents


supported the event, then I would have no objection—bar one. Try as I might, I could not evolve a road system that is as attractive and offers the hotel accommodation that the existing road race circuit offers, which brings dynamic vibration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I mean, vibrancy, to the city centre. It is not essential to Birmingham Heartlands—I misquoted Sir Reginald Eyre —but it is beneficial to them and to the city generally.
As to the cost of moving the race, I am at one with the hon. Lady in not wanting another £1 million or £2 million spent on moving the circuit to Northfield. I agree with the hon. Lady that that would be a scandalous waste of everyone's money.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman gives a very clear answer. I understood him to say that he would be in favour of moving the race if a majority were in favour—and that from an hon. Member with a marginal seat. Nevertheless, I am anxious to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington of my view. The power to run the two-day event will remain, whatever happens to the Bill. That event has been run for four years, and it has been found that the city is unable to organise it in such a way that its costs were covered. The city has also been unable to organise the race so that it complies with the basic framework of the law. It is laughable to suggest that the House should entertain a Bill to extend the city's powers when it has failed so abysmally in its efforts to run a two-day event.
The Bill should not pass, and I hope that it will not. I hope that we shall return to it again and again, until time runs out. Birmingham can then continue with a two-day event—and when it has proved that it can run that properly, it is entitled to ask for something more. However, my view is that the disruption that a four-day event would cause would be too high a price to pay for the people of Ladywood. A four-day event should be run on a purpose-built track somewhere else in Birmingham, if the city wants to be associated with such an event.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful if at this point I intervene briefly to restate the Government's view. I say "briefly" because I know that a number of hon. Members still hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As the House knows, the Government traditionally stand neutral in relation to private Bills where no major matter of principle is involved. The Bill before the House is no exception, as was made clear to the House by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he intervened on Second Reading last year. The Bill raises issues which are essentially of local concern and there is no case for the Government to intervene. It is for the promoter to persuade the House that the powers sought are justified. The Unopposed Bills Committee has allowed the measure to proceed with amendments in the usual way, so I hope that the House will allow the Bill to progress.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister's statement was very disappointing. He quoted the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he

intervened, as the Minister then responsible, in the Second Reading debate in April 1989. If the Minister's officials had given him the benefit of their research and knowledge, he would have known that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made a very different statement during the passage of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985. The Minister smiles, so I assume that he is aware of her words but thought that discretion was the better part of valour and did not want to refer to them. The right hon. Member for Wallasey made it clear on that occasion, not that the Government were neutral, but that they expected the city council to run the road race on a self-financing basis. That has not happened, and that is at the heart of the objections to the Bill by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
I join others of my hon. Friends in regretting the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is to undergo an operation tomorrow, having been admitted to hospital this evening. We all look forward to his quick recovery and to his presence at any future debates on this issue.
I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I was amused to learn that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) can apparently see into my right hon. Friend's mind and knows that he would, if he were here, agree with the hon. Member. I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend, although I have known him for many years, and can claim to know him rather better than the hon. Member for Yardley.
I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, in his inimitable way, supported the Bill on Second Reading, but I believe and suggest to the House that a good reason for not considering the Bill any further would be to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath to be present amongst us. I believe that if he could listen to the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) he would have good reason to reconsider his support for the Bill on that occasion—[Interruption.] Time is passing, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has been notable for his absence throughout most of our proceedings this evening, so I think that he owes it to himself to listen to our arguments, especially since[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman is always absent; that is why we always make that point.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was quoted in the Birmingham newspapers last weekend as saying that he did not understand the objections of the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I shall give the hon. Member for Northfield a further opportunity to understand our objections.
The hon. Member for Yardley claims that the reason why he gave way and why his speech was suddenly deflated during the Second Reading debate in April 1989 was that he was anxious to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and to understand our objections. I regret that within minutes the hon. Member for Yardley was voting on the closure to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr from expressing his objections and explaining why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
There are two basic grounds for objecting to the Bill and for arguing that it should not be given further consideration. The first concerns the effect on the residents


who live in the area affected by the race, such as the constituents represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. The second is the financial argument.

Mr. Bevan: It is true that I wanted to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but as soon as I heard him I had had enough and that is why I sat down.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley always has a short attention span and has often heard enough very quickly. However, let me return to the objections to the Bill.
I must be fair to the city council, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood would at least join me in this tribute to it. It did not seek to prevent her constituents from petitioning, from objecting to the Bill, or from appearing before the Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) served—to enable the Committee to hear the reasons for her constituents' passionate objections to the idea that the event should be extended to four days and to the idea of a grand prix. I regret that some other bodies such as the West Midlands passenger transport authority do not take the same attitude and are objecting to the locus standi of residents in similar situations on other Bills, which I shall not discuss this evening because time is pressing, but we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss that on other private Bills during the Session.

Ms. Short: Some of my constituents did petition, but there is cost and difficulty involved for people who wish to petition. The city council tried to prevent someone from petitioning because he was in its employment, and it led to an important matter of privilege coming before the House, so I am afraid—and I am sorry to detract from the compliment that my hon. Friend is paying—that the city council tried to limit the power of people to petition against the Bill.

Mr. Davis: I stand corrected by my hon. Friend. I had forgotten that regrettable incident. Of course, the Select Committee found that the city council was in breach of privilege. However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is interesting that as soon as a complaint was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of that member of staff the hon. Member for Northfield, with his knowledge and insight into what goes on in the Labour rooms of the city council, was able to say categorically to the press that it was all nonsense and there was no breach of privilege. He knew; my hon. Friends did not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr did not know, but the hon. Member for Northfield has a special line to the people who support the Bill in the city council. The hon. Member for Northfield was able to say categorically that there was no breach of parliamentary privilege, and I have yet to see him withdraw that statement, as I have yet to hear him explain the position on a number of the factors which affect the Bill.
The hon. Member for Yardley—I cannot leave him alone—said—[Interruption.] I shall leave the hon. Member for Selly Oak alone because he has not been here long enough, but the hon. Member for Yardley has sat patiently throughout the debate, and he said that the amendments to the Bill accepted in Committee protected the residents of Ladywood in every possible way. Of course, they do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has made it clear that she is not satisfied, as have many of her constituents. They are not sufficiently protected: certainly they are not protected in every possible way. If they were, my hon. Friend would not have been able to table so many amendments. One reason why we should not proceed with the Bill is to allow the city council to devote adequate thought to the amendments, no doubt with the advice of the hon. Members for Yardley and for Northfield.
I support the protestations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already quoted from a letter that I received from a gentleman living in Wheeley's road, Edgbaston. I am not sure whether Wheeley's road is in my hon. Friend's constituency; perhaps it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who said earlier that she would take up the complaints of one of our correspondents. I hope that she will take up this complaint as well: she may have received it already.

Dame Jill Knight: What I said was that this was the first that I had heard of the matter. No complaint had been made to me about the road race damaging the fabric of school buildings. Had I received such a complaint, I would have been more than ready to take it up.

Mr. Davis: I thought that the hon. Lady went further, and said that she had received no complaints about contractors having failed to clear away dangerous objects —or is she saying that she has received such complaints? I do not wish to misquote her.

Dame Jill Knight: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes, he does.

Dame Jill Knight: No, I do not believe that.
I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) exactly what I have just repeated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular incident. I listened carefully to what was said, and I have since checked, but I have received no letter about such matters in my capacity as Member of Parliament for that area.

Mr. Davis: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although I am not sure whether she means that she has had no letters of complaint at all, or no letters from the gentleman whom I mentioned.
Although I was not sure whose constituent the author of the letter was, I feel free to quote from it. It states:
We live at the City end of Wheeley's Road and hence, are on the fringes of the race area, but like many others are subjected to the full environmental factors and inconvenience which this event brings and were never asked for our opinion, despite the City publicity on polls and soundings among local residents. Road delays spread over many weeks, green areas turned into dirty dumping grounds for concrete and fencing, noise and concern about domestic security at a time when there are many visitors to the area are some of the more obvious drawbacks. The noise and threatening nature of helicopters belonging to the police and television companies over a residential district, are a separate, but equally distressing saga.
I suspect that the same complaint will be made by many people who live in that part of Edgbaston—and, indeed. by many people who live in the relevant parts of Ladywood and Sparkbrook. Hon. Members should note


that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is also opposed to the Bill in principle.
Although I accept that the hon. Member for Northfield has given his undertakings in good faith, there was nothing to stop the city council from observing many of those undertakings last year. It did not do so, and I question whether it wants to. Our experience of the undertakings given by the council—undertakings given in the House, and enshrined in an amendment drafted by the council —does not encourage us to accept its undertakings in future.

Mr. Roger King: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 24.

Division No. 97]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butterfill, John
Knox, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Chapman, Sydney
Lilley, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Clelland, David
Maclean, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Crowther, Stan
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Michael, Alun


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dorrell, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fallon, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fraser, John
Rhodes James, Robert


French, Douglas
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Stevens, Lewis


Ground, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Thorne, Neil


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wallace, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wells, Bowen


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)



Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan and


Janman, Tim
 Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark


Kilfedder, James





NOES


Ashby, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam





Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Rooker, Jeff


Doran, Frank
Short, Clare


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Tredinnick, David


McFall, John



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes


Meale, Alan
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Mowlam, Marjorie
 Mr. Harry Barnes.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 March.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

GENERALISED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES (POLAND, HUNGARY AND KOREA)

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9127/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 14th February 1990 and 9865/89 relating to the Generalised System of Preferences support for Poland and Hungary 9762/89 relating to levies on agricultural products from Poland and Hungary, 10318/87 and 4406/88 relating to the Generalised System of Preferences for South Korea; and supports the Government's agreement to the extension of the European Community's Generalised System of Preferences to Poland and Hungary.—[Mr. Dorrell]

Question agreed to.

Midlands Forest

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Greville Janner: I am delighted to have the opportunity to place before the House the Countryside Commission's proposal for a new national forest in the midlands and to say how much Leicestershire Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, believe that Leicestershire is the right place for the forest. This is one of the many occasions, which are seldom recognised, when Leicestershire Members of Parliament work and campaign together and I hope that we shall achieve results together.
I wish to say how much my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) regrets that he cannot be present. He has asked me to say how much he supports the campaign and I know that he does so because he is a tremendous worker for his constituents. The placing of the forest in Leicestershire is important to us all.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), in whose constituency the bulk of the forest will be, is present. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he will say that he supports the proposal, as does the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) with whom I have campaigned on many issues affecting our constituents which, like this one, were above party politics.
Unfortunately, because of his reprehensible office, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is unable to speak. On this matter, at least it would have been a pleasure to hear him. He indicates, by his smile and posture, that he is on our side.
The Countryside Commission has produced a consultation document entitled, "A new National Forest for the Midlands." It is a great concept for a massive new national forest. The Countryside Commission has suggested five sites. It says that the purpose of the forest is to provide a proper framework of tree planting around which housing and farming and recreation can be developed, to be a major new recreational resource, to offer a way of using farmland that has been marginalised by new farming methods and by the European Economic Community, and to act as a catalyst for economic development. This is a matter of great environmental importance, not least because at a time when acid rain is destroying our forests it offers us a chance to build one.
Why is Leicestershire the most suitable of the five sites? I apply to it the criteria that the Countryside Commission would apply. It is the least treed of all the sites—the most green field of the sites. There is a small forest, Charnwood —small compared with Sherwood—from which the proposed forest would radiate. The region has many old mines and areas which require landscaping. As industries decline, the need for this forest becomes increasingly important. Alas, the traditional industries of Leicestershire are declining—knitwear, hosiery and footwear—and we need the new life that the forest would bring. It is essential if new industry is to be attracted to our county.
The Countryside Commission said that one vital factor in choosing the site would be the willingness of local people to have it. I pay tribute to the stunningly successful woody tree campaign which was run by the Leicester Mercury and which evoked 10,000 telephone calls in

support one weekend, thousands of letters sent through the post and representations which will be sent on. Schools and individuals in my constituency say that, although the forest will be outside Leicester, it will provide a vital new asset to the city, a new lung and a new resource for the people who live in it.
The Countryside Commission said that there must be support at local level which must be maintained, and I am sure that it will be. The commission said that it will be some 20 years before the first trees show signs of lively growth and perhaps 50 years before there is real progress. I hope that my constituents will be good enough to keep re-electing me so that I will be there to feast and picnic in that forest in 20 years' time, if not in 50. I hope that, with the united phalanx of Leicestershire Members of Parliament—whether they are able to speak in the debate or whether they can only sit and listen and nod—the Countryside Commission will hear what we have to say and recognise that Leicestershire is the right county for this magnificent new forest.

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate and for being so courteous to other Leicestershire Members in allowing time for us to speak. As he said, I am the Member perhaps most affected by the proposal for a new forest in the midlands if our area is selected. I need not go through all the arguments so admirably put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to why we should have the forest. I shall concentrate on other matters.
If we are to have the forest, it is right that we should show that we support it locally and that it will be loved, cherished and looked after by local people. The Countryside Commission will consider that criterion in making its choice. We in Leicestershire have shown how much we want the forest and will look after it.
I pay tribute to the magnificent campaign run by the Leicester Mercury, informing people and getting the overwhelming support of the local population. The newspaper ran a phone-in and found that 10,000 people were in favour and only 44 against. That speaks for the support that the forest will have in our area.
There is another aspect. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West comes from the city and referred to the delights to which the city dwellers will look forward. The forest will not only offer leisure facilities and attract. tourism—it will be a delight for the people of Leicester who we hope will be able to come along the Ivanhoe line from Leicester, stop at a glade in the middle of the forest and picnic there in summer, enjoying the delights and benefits that the forest offers.
I shall not go around demanding that the forest be in north-west Leicestershire, crossing south Derbyshire into Staffordshire. I do not make such a demand because that is not how the Countryside Commission operates and that is not how it will be persuaded to choose our area. I merely say that our area wants the forest, we need it and we will give it all the support and love that is required in such an immense undertaking. Our area is therefore eminently suited to be considered for the siting of the forest.

Mr. Keith Vaz: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)?

Mr. Vaz: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This year, my hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) celebrates a generation in the House, having been a Member for 20 years. With his usual generosity he has allowed other Leicestershire Members to take part in the debate. I am particularly fond of my hon. and learned Friend because he brought me to the House in 1979 and took me on to the roof. It was my first visit.
Today Leicester Members on both sides of the House are united in support of the campaign. I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury, the editor Mr. Leys, and its journalists for leading the campaign so dynamically. Newspapers are so often destructive, but here we have an example of a newspaper playing a constructive role in leading public opinion.
I believe that the people of Leicestershire and my constituents will cherish the forest. It will become a vital part of life in our beautiful county, which lies modestly in the heart of England. I hope that the Minister will take note of the tremendous and rare unity that we display today and will use his good offices to pass on our views to the chairman of the Countryside Commission.

Mr. Michael Latham: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West has worked closely with the Leicester Mercury on this matter, which affects his own constituency. I am a member of the Leicestershire branch of the Country Landowners Association executive committee, although I own no land in Leicestershire or anywhere else—apart, that is, from a quarter of an acre of garden. At our meeting some months ago, members expressed considerable unhappiness that other counties were making more of their claim to have the forest sited in their area than Leicestershire. As a result, tremendous efforts were made by Leicestershire county council, the Leicester Mercury and others to get the forest in its rightful place, which is Leicestershire.
I am unique among Leicestershire Members in having a potential competitor in my own area. The Northamptonshire forest, if granted—I hope that it will not be granted—would spill into Rutland, but I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Rutland district council has said that it does not want the forest. Apparently,
The north western part of Leicestershire was thought to be more deserving of such a scheme than Rutland.
That is the decision of Rutland district council, and I am happy to commend it.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for giving us this opportunity to be seen among other Leicestershire Members demonstrating our solidarity in

favour of the forest. The forest has caught the imagination of the people of Leicestershire. The Leicester Mercury has run a good campaign. We have shown that there is very little opposition and a fantastic amount of support. That is hardly surprising because, of all the proposals, this is the only proposal for a really new forest. The forest may be between two existing forests, but the land on which it will be planted is virgin territory—it has never before been planted with a large number of trees.
There are many former mineral sites in the county which need attention and are eligible for grants. We desperately hope that the forest will come to north-east Leicestershire. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), whose idea this was originally, that there should be a massive campaign in favour of the forest and we are all behind him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising this important issue on the Adjournment and on securing this striking degree of all-party support. We have heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) as well as from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has ensured that his duties in the House coincide with the debate.
The interesting idea of a midlands forest emanates from the Countryside Commission which launched a consultation paper last November, giving certain details and seeking views on several key factors, particularly funding, management and, perhaps most important, location. It identified five areas which it has shortlisted—first, a north-south belt between Birmingham and Coventry; secondly, land on the borders of Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire; thirdly, an area in north-east Northamptonshire which takes in part of south-east Leicestershire; fourthly, the Sherwood forest area, mainly in Nottinghamshire but extending into eastern Derbyshire; and finally, the most westerly option, land from Droitwich into Hereford and Worcester and northwards to Telford.
The commission's aim in suggesting those options is to decide on a final site later this year which will launch a 150 sq mile multi-purpose forest, only about half of which will be in strict terms under tree cover, with the rest consisting of a blend of small woods, fields, towns and villages. In due course, like its famous and ancient counterpart in Hampshire, we hope that the new forest will become a major national asset.
The Countryside Commission has chosen the midlands for all of its candidate sites. Why? It is partly because much of the farmland is vulnerable to changes in agriculture in the light of farm surpluses and other changes in the pattern of agriculture. In addition, the midlands includes major centres of population which in some cases are only poorly or incompletely served with opportunities for countryside recreation. In addition, the past activities of industry have


produced a legacy of damaged landscapes in the area which offer considerable scope for environmental improvement.
To bring the project to completion would be a long-term challenge of great complexity. It would be the work of several generations. I am sure that good progress could be made within the first 30 years or so and that the forest would serve to enhance the landscape as well as create new habitats and outlets for recreation. It would create jobs and eventually provide an important source of home-grown timber. Great thought will have to go into planning the forest to get the balance right between soft woods and hard woods and between the different species of hard woods.
The commission has rightly stressed that, to succeed, the forest must attract the support of local people, landowners, businesses and central and local government. The consultation paper marked a first step in seeking their views. It carried a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who described the concept of a new lowlands forest as "bold and far-reaching". However, he endorsed the importance attached by the commission to canvassing a broad range of opinion to ensure that
any scheme which results enjoys the wide support which will be a vital factor in its success".
I am sure that the commission will take into account the degree and depth of local support and the strength of local campaigns in selecting a final choice. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has drawn attention to the support in his constituency and in Leicestershire generally. I know, because I have seen the press cuttings, that the Leicester Mercury has run a notable campaign in support of that site. The consultation period runs until 28 February and in parallel the commission has in hand several further studies covering likely costs, the socio-economic effects of the proposed forest and its potential environmental impact. It is also conducting surveys of public opinion in the areas concerned.
The next step will be for the commission to consider the results of those studies, once available, and the detailed response to public consultation itself.

Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend said that the consultation period ran until 28 February. Will he ensure that this debate is brought to the attention of the Countryside Commission?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I undertake to do so.
The next step is to consider the results of the surveys and, as part of the consultation process, to study the views of Members of Parliament and what is said both inside and outside the House, as I have promised.
I should stress that besides the all-important matter of location, on which the debate has focused, a number of key points remain for exhaustive consideration. Obviously, funding will be important. Considerable resources will be required for a large-scale, long-term programme.

Mr. Ashby: British Coal owns a great deal of the land and much of it has been ravaged by mining. Should not British Coal put in a great deal of the funding? Will my hon. Friend consider that?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The greater the sponsorship from the private sector or from public bodies such as British Coal, the more likely it is that the candidate sites will receive favourable consideration. I urge hon.
Members not to waste any opportunities to secure corporate funding to bolster the case for their particular sites or constituencies. It is a major project and costs will be substantial. Although there are planting grants under existing schemes run by the Forestry Commission and other bodies, of themselves they will not be sufficient. We are looking for outside, additional funding to get the project off the ground and to ensure that it is followed through to a successful conclusion.
A second aspect on which decisions would be needed relates to the land itself. A significant area would need to be converted from its present use to woodland. We need to consider how that would become available, bearing in mind the size of the project. I have already said that, in total, it would encompass about 150 sq miles. There is no question of compulsory purchase—that has already been ruled out by the Countryside Commission. In any case, as I have emphasised, the forest would not consist of unbroken tree cover. Farmland and continued agriculture would form part of the essential character of the forest. However, the commission believes that local landowners would be keen to establish and manage new and existing woodland cover, but complementary to that there is also scope for linking new woodland and recreation facilities to new development and for converting derelict land to lowland forest.
I do not rule out the acquisition of land on the open market, for example, by bodies already owning and managing land, for conservation and amenity purposes.
Last but not least, we need to look ahead to see how the project and the forest would be managed in the longer term. As the commission stresses, we are talking of an extremely long-term investment and that highlights the management requirement and the essential need for continuity of that management.
Some people suppose that planting a forest is simply a question of putting in a few saplings, going away for 40 years, coming back and finding a forest. That is not the case. Trees need to be staked, watered, weeded and kept free of vermin and vandalism. In other words, we need a long-term commitment by people living and working in the area.

Mr. Tredinnick: Several villages in my constituency come within the new forest area and there is a genuine determination among landowners and all those working on the land to make a success of the project. One or two farmers were concerned that they would be forced out of business, but they have been reassured. There is tremendous support for the project right across the board in this part of west Leicestershire.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I re-emphasise that there will be no compulsory purchase of land—essentially the undertaking is voluntary—and I hope that that reassures landowners in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The commission has not yet decided what the vehicle should be for undertaking the large project. Should we set up a private company on which private and public interests are represented? Should the company be publicly owned or should a voluntary organisation, perhaps with charitable status, push the project through? Perhaps the answer will be a combination of all the models, but I do not want to prejudge the issue.
As hon. Members have said, the proposed midlands forest is part of a wider trend. Worldwide there is increased


interest in all matters to do with trees and forests. More than ever we are conscious that the stability of global ecosystems, even of the climate itself, is crucially dependent upon forest cover in ways that we are only now beginning to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West mentioned our coal deposits, which were laid down over some 300 million years. In the space of just a few centuries, however, we are putting a lot of that coal back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Planting trees can reverse that process and fix carbon dioxide back into solid form. It might be a nice concept locally that we are completing the carbon cycle by planting trees.
Great concern has also been expressed about the destruction of the tropical rain forests. In only three years this country has suffered great storms of considerable violence that have caused the loss of many trees. Some 15 million were lost in the great storm of 1987 alone. It is therefore vital that we do all we can, where we can, to promote new planting. I remind the House that only 10 per cent. of Great Britain's land area is covered by forest, in

comparison with the 25 per cent. average forest cover in the European Community. There is considerable scope for increased planting.
I emphasise the importance of local support and commitment to the project. We want to harness local enthusiasm and convert it into firm offers of involvement by private and voluntary organisations, companies and the public generally. In part at least, a final choice of location for the forest will be critically dependent on practical local support of that sort.
We have had a useful, although short, debate. The vision of a midlands forest is an exciting one. But, like anything worth while, it will not be achieved without hard work and commitment. From what I heard during this debate, that dedication exists in the midlands in abundance. I cannot possibly prejudge which of the candidate sites will be selected. For the present, I must simply note the views expressed. I have already undertaken to pass them on to the Countryside Commission. I will certainly bear in mind both the support and the views expressed when the final decision has to be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.